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 11/22/2023.
Claims 1-8 and 13-24 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/22/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 17 is 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 17 recites HSMPool which is an acronym that has not been defined in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, 13, 14, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MacMillan et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0258716).
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);
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).
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);
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).
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);
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).
Regarding claims 8 and 24, MacMillan disclosed determining an operation type according to the operation request (MacMillan Figs. 6-7 and Paragraphs 0106-0121 for example).
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 2-7, and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacMillan, and further in view of Teng et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0194862) hereinafter referred to as Teng.
Regarding claims 2 and 18, while MacMillan disclosed that 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.
Regarding claims 3 and 19, 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 a 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 HSMPool of the encryptor resource pool, and determining the encryptor corresponding to the device handle as the target encryptor (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 1-8 and 13-24 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.
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 9AM-3PM EST.
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