DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Following response to arguments is based on Applicant’s arguments filed on 09 February 2026.
Regarding Previous Claim Objections
Previous objection to claims 5, 12, 15, 20 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment to the objected claims.
Regarding Previous Rejection Under 35 USC § 103
Previous rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment to the rejected claims.
Regarding Previous Rejection Under 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments [Pages 8-11] with respect to rejection of claims 1, 9, 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Status
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-10, 12, 15-18, 20 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – Second Paragraph
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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
For claim 1:
At line 5, it is unclear whether i) “of the message” should be “of the encrypted and integrity-protected message”, or ii) “of the message” lacks of antecedent basis. The unclarity arises because, along the claim, there are several “messages” recited.
At line 9, it is unclear whether “wherein Kenc” should be “wherein the Kenc”, as Kenc was previously introduced at line 8.
At line 9, it is unclear which “the message” it is referring to, as there are several messages previously recited.
At line 10, “the MAC message” lacks of antecedent basis. At line 5, it was recited “a MAC of the message” not “a MAC message” (they are not equivalent, necessarily).
At line 11, it is unclear which “the message” it is referring to, as there are several messages previously recited.
At line 15, it is unclear whether “a message” should be referring to the previous recited messages or, it this “message” is different, whether it should be labeled different.
For claim 2:
At line 5, it is unclear which “the message” it is referring to, as there are several messages previously recited.
For claim 3:
At line 1, it is unclear whether it should be “includes the”.
At line 3, it is unclear whether it should be “includes the”.
For claim 5:
At lines 3-4, it is unclear whether it should be “and the MAC”.
For claim 9:
This claim is rejected as applied to claim 1.
For claim 10:
This claim is rejected as applied to claim 2.
For claim 16:
This claim is rejected as applied to claim 1.
For claim 17:
This claim is rejected as applied to claim 2.
For claim 18:
This claim is rejected as applied to claim 3.
For claim 20:
This claim is rejected as applied to claim 5.
For claims 2-8, 10-15, 17-20:
These claims are also rejected as they depend upon a rejected claim.
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 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 FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5708. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 5712723044. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
February 21, 2026
/FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633