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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication filed on 6/25/2026.
Claims 1, 4-7, 13-17, and 20-23 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that In MacMillan…it is not necessary to establish an encryptor adaptation library for interacting with an external encryptor. The examiner does not find the argument persuasive as the claims do not require an external encryptor, and therefore the argument is moot. Further, in the combination of MacMillan and Teng, Teng taught that doing so to improve efficiency, and therefore there would be motivation to modify MacMillan in that way.
The applicants’ argument that MacMillan (alone) fails to teach “transmitting, via…with encryptors”, the argument is mere allegation. There is no explanation as to why the applicants believe this to be true outside of the above addressed remark regarding external encryptors. As such, the examiner does not find the allegation persuasive.
The applicants argue that MacMillan (alone) does not teach “establishing, for each operation type, an operation interface for establishing a connection with a cryptographic module”. This is not a limitation that is claimed, and as such the argument is moot. Regarding the actual claim language “establishing operation interfaces respectively corresponding to various operation types, wherein the operation interfaces are configured to establish connections with encryptors”. The sections cited by MacMillan clearly show operation interfaces for establishing connections for various operation types and that and some of the included operations are for reading, writing, encrypting, decrypting, etc. As such, the examiner does not find the argument persuasive.
Applicants allege that MacMillen does not involve storage devices such as cloud hard disks or encrypted disks at all. The examiner disagrees. Paragraph 0002 of MacMillen clearly shows that cloud based computing is considered part of their system. Further, paragraph 0047 of MacMillen shows that they considered using cloud architecture as part of their system. Further, MacMillen shows that the virtual devices, including hard disks are located on network servers (i.e. on the cloud) and therefore are cloud hard disks. Further, the claims only mention cloud hard disks in the preamble and as such no weight is given to such a limitation.
Applicants allege that MacMillen does not disclose an encrypted disk with encrypted disk header information either. Paragraph 0102 shows disk header information being retrieved from decrypted context information, which at least makes clear that the disk header information was encrypted. Simply because they don’t explicitly call it header information does not mean it does not meet the scope of the claim language. Further, Paragraph 0079 states that the virtual hard drives may be protected using cryptographic services as well. As such, the examiner does not find the argument persuasive.
Further, most of the applicants’ arguments appear to analyze MacMillan alone, rather than the combination of MacMillan and Teng that was (and continues to be) relied upon by the examiner in rejecting now cancelled claims 2-3 and 18-19, now incorporated into claim 1. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As such, the remainder of the applicants’ arguments are moot and unpersuasive.
Because the examiner does not find the arguments persuasive the examiner has maintained the rejections as presented below.
All objections and rejections not set forth below have been withdrawn.
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 1, 4-7, 13, 14, 15-17, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacMillan et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0258716), and further in view of Teng et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0194862) hereinafter referred to as Teng.
Regarding claim 1, MacMillan disclosed a method for encrypting and decrypting a cloud hard disk, comprising:
calling a pre-established encrypted disk in response to an operation request (MacMillan Figs. 6-7 and Paragraphs 0106-0121 for example), and determining an operation type according to the operation request (MacMillan Figs. 6-7 and Paragraphs 0106-0121 for example);
transmitting, via a corresponding operation interface in an encryptor adaptation library, acquired operation data to a target encryptor, so that the target encryptor performs a corresponding operation on the operation data (MacMillan Figs. 6-7 and Paragraphs 0106-0121 for example); and
receiving, via the operation interface, an operation result returned by the target encryptor (MacMillan Figs. 6-7 and Paragraphs 0106-0121 for example);
wherein the encryptor adaptation library is established by: establishing operation interfaces respectively corresponding to various operation types, wherein the operation interfaces are configured to establish connections with encryptors (MacMillan Paragraphs 0066-0070, 0080-0084).
MacMillan did not explicitly teach adding identification codes corresponding to the encryptors to a pre-established encryptor resource pool.
In an analogous system, Teng taught a system for increasing efficiency of encryption service including creating pools of encryption machines and choosing machines from the pools when encryption processing is needed, including adding identification codes corresponding to the encryptors to a pre-established encryptor resource pool (Teng Paragraphs 0043-0056 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Teng in the system of MacMillan by employing the pools of encryption machines to service the encryption services needed by MacMillan. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the efficiency of the encryption service handling.
Further, in this combination, MacMillan and Teng taught that the encrypted disk is established by:
for each computation, acquiring parameter information about the computation (MacMillan Figs. 6-7 and Paragraphs 0106-0121 for example);
configuring a corresponding operation interface in the encryptor adaptation library according to the parameter information to obtain interface information about the operation interface (MacMillan Paragraphs 0066-0070, 0080-0084 and 0106-0121 for example);
adding each interface information obtained to encrypted disk header information about the encrypted disk to be established, creating and obtaining the encrypted disk (MacMillan Figs. 6-7 and Paragraphs 0106-0121 for example).
Regarding claim 13, MacMillan disclosed an apparatus for encrypting and decrypting a cloud hard disk, comprising:
a memory configured to store a computer program (MacMillan Figs. 1-3 for example); and
a processor (MacMillan Figs. 1-3 for example) that, when executing the computer program, implements operations of:
calling a pre-established encrypted disk in response to an operation request (MacMillan Figs. 6-7 and Paragraphs 0106-0121 for example), and determining an operation type according to the operation request (MacMillan Figs. 6-7 and Paragraphs 0106-0121 for example);
transmitting, via a corresponding operation interface in an encryptor adaptation library, acquired operation data to a target encryptor, so that the target encryptor performs a corresponding operation on the operation data (MacMillan Figs. 6-7 and Paragraphs 0106-0121 for example); and
receiving, via the operation interface, an operation result returned by the target encryptor (MacMillan Figs. 6-7 and Paragraphs 0106-0121 for example);
wherein the encryptor adaptation library is established by: establishing operation interfaces respectively corresponding to various operation types, wherein the operation interfaces are configured to establish connections with encryptors (MacMillan Paragraphs 0066-0070, 0080-0084).
MacMillan did not explicitly teach adding identification codes corresponding to the encryptors to a pre-established encryptor resource pool.
In an analogous system, Teng taught a system for increasing efficiency of encryption service including creating pools of encryption machines and choosing machines from the pools when encryption processing is needed, including adding identification codes corresponding to the encryptors to a pre-established encryptor resource pool (Teng Paragraphs 0043-0056 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Teng in the system of MacMillan by employing the pools of encryption machines to service the encryption services needed by MacMillan. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the efficiency of the encryption service handling.
Further, in this combination, MacMillan and Teng taught that the encrypted disk is established by:
for each computation, acquiring parameter information about the computation (MacMillan Figs. 6-7 and Paragraphs 0106-0121 for example);
configuring a corresponding operation interface in the encryptor adaptation library according to the parameter information to obtain interface information about the operation interface (MacMillan Paragraphs 0066-0070, 0080-0084 and 0106-0121 for example);
adding each interface information obtained to encrypted disk header information about the encrypted disk to be established, creating and obtaining the encrypted disk (MacMillan Figs. 6-7 and Paragraphs 0106-0121 for example).
Regarding claim 14, MacMillan disclosed a non-transient computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program that, when executed by a processor, implements operations of:
calling a pre-established encrypted disk in response to an operation request (MacMillan Figs. 6-7 and Paragraphs 0106-0121 for example), and determining an operation type according to the operation request (MacMillan Figs. 6-7 and Paragraphs 0106-0121 for example);
transmitting, via a corresponding operation interface in an encryptor adaptation library, acquired operation data to a target encryptor, so that the target encryptor performs a corresponding operation on the operation data (MacMillan Figs. 6-7 and Paragraphs 0106-0121 for example); and
receiving, via the operation interface, an operation result returned by the target encryptor (MacMillan Figs. 6-7 and Paragraphs 0106-0121 for example);
wherein the encryptor adaptation library is established by: establishing operation interfaces respectively corresponding to various operation types, wherein the operation interfaces are configured to establish connections with encryptors (MacMillan Paragraphs 0066-0070, 0080-0084).
MacMillan did not explicitly teach adding identification codes corresponding to the encryptors to a pre-established encryptor resource pool.
In an analogous system, Teng taught a system for increasing efficiency of encryption service including creating pools of encryption machines and choosing machines from the pools when encryption processing is needed, including adding identification codes corresponding to the encryptors to a pre-established encryptor resource pool (Teng Paragraphs 0043-0056 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Teng in the system of MacMillan by employing the pools of encryption machines to service the encryption services needed by MacMillan. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the efficiency of the encryption service handling.
Further, in this combination, MacMillan and Teng taught that the encrypted disk is established by:
for each computation, acquiring parameter information about the computation (MacMillan Figs. 6-7 and Paragraphs 0106-0121 for example);
configuring a corresponding operation interface in the encryptor adaptation library according to the parameter information to obtain interface information about the operation interface (MacMillan Paragraphs 0066-0070, 0080-0084 and 0106-0121 for example);
adding each interface information obtained to encrypted disk header information about the encrypted disk to be established, creating and obtaining the encrypted disk (MacMillan Figs. 6-7 and Paragraphs 0106-0121 for example).
Regarding claims 4 and 20, MacMillan and Teng taught a process of transmitting, via a corresponding operation interface in an encryptor adaptation library, acquired operation data to the target encryptor comprises:
determining the target encryptor according to the pre-established encryptor adaptation library (MacMillan Figs. 6-7 and Paragraphs 0106-0121 for example);
determining a target operation interface among the operation interfaces according to an operation type of the operation request and the encrypted disk header information about the encrypted disk (MacMillan Figs. 6-7 and Paragraphs 0106-0121 for example); and transmitting the acquired operation data to the target encryptor via the target operation interface (MacMillan Figs. 6-7 and Paragraphs 0106-0121 for example).
Regarding claims 5 and 21, MacMillan and Teng taught a process of determining the target encryptor according to the pre-established encryptor adaptation library comprises: determining encryptors respectively corresponding to the identification codes in the encryptor resource pool; and determining idle encryptors among the encryptors, and determining the target encryptor among the idle encryptors (Teng Paragraphs 0043-0056 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Teng in the system of MacMillan by employing the pools of encryption machines to service the encryption services needed by MacMillan. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the efficiency of the encryption service handling.
Regarding claims 6 and 22, MacMillan and Teng taught that the operation interface is one of an initialization interface, a symmetric encryption algorithm encryption/decryption interface, an asymmetric encryption algorithm key generation interface, an asymmetric encryption algorithm encryption/decryption interface, an asymmetric encryption algorithm signature/verification signature interface, a Hash/HMCA interface, a random number generation interface, and an encryptor disabling interface (MacMillan Figs. 6-7 and Paragraphs 0106-0121 for example).
Regarding claims 7 and 23, MacMillan and Teng taught that in response to receiving an operation ending message, disabling the target encryptor through a corresponding interface of the encryptor adaptation library (Teng Paragraphs 0043-0056 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Teng in the system of MacMillan by employing the pools of encryption machines to service the encryption services needed by MacMillan. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the efficiency of the encryption service handling.
Regarding claim 15, MacMillan and Teng taught that the encryptor adaptation library is adapted to encryptors of different manufacturers, and is encapsulated with functional interfaces provided by encryptors of different manufacturers (Teng Paragraphs 0003 and 0043-0056 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Teng in the system of MacMillan by employing the pools of encryption machines to service the encryption services needed by MacMillan. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the efficiency of the encryption service handling.
Regarding claim 16, MacMillan and Teng taught that the encryptor adaptation library is configured to support multiple encryptors to simultaneously perform an encryption operation or a decryption operation based on the encryptor resource pool (Teng Paragraphs 0043-0056 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Teng in the system of MacMillan by employing the pools of encryption machines to service the encryption services needed by MacMillan. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the efficiency of the encryption service handling.
Regarding claim 17, MacMillan and Teng taught a process of determining the target encryptor according to the pre-established encryptor adaptation library comprises: randomly obtaining a device handle from an array of the encryptor resource pool, and determining the encryptor corresponding to the device handle as the target encryptor (Teng Paragraphs 0043-0056 for example),
wherein the array of the encryptor resource pool is a global variable, and comprises device handles of all available encryptors in the encryptor adaptation library (Teng Paragraphs 0043-0056 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Teng in the system of MacMillan by employing the pools of encryption machines to service the encryption services needed by MacMillan. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the efficiency of the encryption service handling.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 4-7, 13-17, and 20-23 have been rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2015/0244693 disclosed a cloud aware file system including intercepting file system accesses from the hypervisor and performing cryptographic processing on the data before performing the access.
US 2021/0216476 disclosed a system where a memory controller receives requests from hypervisor and performs appropriate cryptographic services prior to servicing the requests.
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 MATTHEW T HENNING whose telephone number is (571)272-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-2PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, 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, William Korzuch can be reached at (571)272-7589. 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.
/MATTHEW T HENNING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights