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 .
Claims 1-15 have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 01/16/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Specification
The specification filed on 01/16/2024 is acceptable for examination proceedings.
Priority
Application 18579742 filed 01/16/2024 is a National Stage entry of PCT/US2022/037403, International Filing Date: 07/16/2022
PCT/US2022/037403 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63222517 , filed 07/16/2021. Therefore, the effective filling date for the subject matter defined in the pending claims of this application is 07/16/2021.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439,
http://www.uspto.gov/sites/defauit/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only. (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2,5,9-10,11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US Pub. No.: US 2012/0102323 A1, hereinafter refer as to Lin) and in view of Singh (US Pub. No.: US 2006/0053289 A1, hereinafter refer as to Singh).
Lin provides Step for sending encrypted data to client, Step for determining client key and generating decrypted data based on client key, Step for checking whether decrypted data is same as original data, Step for determining that client fails in validation and Step for setting client data same as host data and determining that client passes the validation.
Singh provides a peer-to-peer communications.
As per claim 1, A method for identifying a remote recipient of information as part of an information exchange between two systems (see Abstract: transmission between the host and the client, for example), the method comprising the steps of: - reforming encryption and decryption keys every time information is exchanged between the two systems so as to verify parties in the information exchange during encrypted data exchange or as a precursor to communication (fig. 2A step S101 and furthermore para. 0014 discloses the host 10 and the client 20 perform an initial validation process that generates a host initial key K.sub.0 for the host 10 and a client initial key K'.sub.0 for the client 20, for example) and - wherein transmission and reception of a small amount of information can validate whether a remote one of the parties is an intended party for communication or data exchange (paras. 0018-0020,0024-0028 discloses the second encryption/decryption module 21 generates validation data X'.sub.n using the symmetrical encryption algorithm based on the decrypted data R'.sub.n and the client key K'.sub.n, X'.sub.n=E.sub.K'n(R.sub.n); the first validation module 15 checks if the decrypted data R.sub.n is the same as the original data R.sub.n. If the decrypted data R'.sub.n is different from the original data R.sub.n, block S115 is implemented, the first validation module 15 determines that the client 20 fails in the validation; the first communication module 14 sends the text data X.sub.0 to the client 20). LIN does not teach reforming encryption and decryption keys every time information is exchanged, for example).
Lin failed to explicitly discloses reforming encryption and decryption keys every time information is exchanged.
However, Singh discloses reforming encryption and decryption keys every time information is exchanged (para. 0008 and 0032-0035 discloses security agent performs the task of generating unique session keys for communication peers; Security Agent S 1 10 generates a session key for each Requested Peer, B 140 and C 130, for example).
Lin as modified by Singh are analogous art because they both are directed to a data security protection method, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the teachings of Lin with the specified features of Singh because they are from the same field of endeavor.
In view of the above, having the method of Lin and then given the well- established teaching of Singh, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the teachings of Lin with the teachings of Singh in order for secure peer-to-peer communications [Singh: Abstract].
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lin as modified by Singh discloses enabling one of the parties to confirm the integrity of the other of the parties as part of the encrypted data exchange (para. 0033 of Lin discloses every time the key used to encrypt data transmitted to the client 20 is computed based on a prior key used to encrypt prior transmitted data, the dynamic key is difficult to hack. Furthermore, the client 20 will be verified based on the prior key whenever requiring more data from the host 10, such a restricted validation mechanism efficiently protects security of the data, for example).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lin as modified by Singh discloses the step of encoding encryption and decryption instructions as part of data communicated between the parties (fig. 3A of Lin shows the second computation module 22 determines a one-way function value H'(R'.sub.0) of the first decryption value R'.sub.0 using the one-way hash function, for example).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lin as modified by Singh discloses the step of encrypting information before transfer from a sender party to a receiver party of the parties (para. 0015 and 0021 of Lin discloses first communication module 14 checks if there is original data R.sub.n+l to be transmitted. If there is original data R.sub.n+l to be transmitted, the procedure returns to block S103; encryption/decryption module 13 generates encrypted data, for example).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lin as modified by Singh discloses wherein a receiving party of the parties validates an identity of a sender party of the parties and verifies the data transmitted from the sender party (para. 0028-0030 of Lin discloses the second communication module 24 sends the encrypted value E(R.sub.0) to the host 10, for example).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lin as modified by Singh discloses wherein the receiving party decrypts data received from the sender party (para. 0024-0026 of Lin discloses the second encryption/decryption module 21 decrypts the test data X.sub.0 using a secret key SK of the asymmetric encryption algorithm, to obtain a first decrypted value R'.sub.0, a second decrypted value K'.sub.0, and a decrypted function value (R.sub.0) of the first decrypted value R.sub.O, for example).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lin as modified by Singh discloses wherein the receiving party generates an encrypted response based on the data received from the sender party (para. 0028-0030 of Lin discloses the second communication module 24 sends the encrypted value E(R'.sub.0) to the host 10, for example).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lin as modified by Singh discloses the step of encapsulating decision steps to further randomise the encryption of data (para. 0024 of Lin discloses the random number generation module 11 generates a first random number R.sub.0 and a second random number K.sub.0, determines a one-way function value H(R.sub.0) of the first random number R.sub.0, generates test data X.sub.0 by encrypting R.sub.0, K.sub.0 and H(R.sub.0) using a public key PK of an asymmetric encryption algorithm, for example).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Lin as modified by Singh discloses the step of linking the steps of claim 1 between a sender party of the parties to other systems to facilitate encrypted communication therebetween (para. 0010,0024-0029, for example).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US Pub. No.: US 2012/0102323 A1, hereinafter refer as to Lin) and in view of Singh (US Pub. No.: US 2006/0053289 A1, hereinafter refer as to Singh), further in view of Scharf et al. US Pub. No.: US 2014/0068254 A1, hereinafter refer as to Scharf).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lin as modified by Singh discloses all the claimed limitations except for the use banks of keys for data encryption.
However, Scharf discloses the use banks of keys for data encryption (fig. 5 depicted Encryption key pool 505, for example).
Lin as modified by Singh and Scharf are analogous art because they both are directed to a collaborative file sharing and/or storage system, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the teachings of Lin as modified by Scharf with the specified features of Singh because they are from the same field of endeavor.
In view of the above, having the method of Lin as modified by Singh and then given the well- established teaching of Scharf, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the teachings of Lin as modified by Singh with the teachings of Scharf in order for a collaborative file sharing and/or storage system that facilitates improved encryption methods and improved recovery methods to respond to a security breach [Scharf: para. 0003].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US Pub. No.: US 2012/0102323 A1, hereinafter refer as to Lin) and in view of Singh (US Pub. No.: US 2006/0053289 A1, hereinafter refer as to Singh), further in view of Allen et al. (US Pub. No.: US 2010/0172504 A1, hereinafter refer as to Allen).
Regarding claim 4, LIN as modified by Singh discloses all claimed invention except for the step of reforming the encryption and decryption keys is accomplished by manipulating and combining key fragments into longer keys.
However, Allen discloses the step of reforming the encryption and decryption keys is accomplished by manipulating and combining key fragments into longer keys (para 0042 discloses the KA provides a key fragment that can be combined with a second fragment stored as part of the user credentials on the key client machine, for example).
Lin as modified by Singh and Allen are analogous art because they both are directed to a key management system, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the teachings of Lin as modified by Scharf with the specified features of Allen because they are from the same field of endeavor.
In view of the above, having the method of Lin as modified by Singh and then given the well- established teaching of Allen, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the teachings of Lin as modified by Singh with the teachings of Allen in order to secure data against attacks from unauthorized use, [Allen: Abstract].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US Pub. No.: US 2012/0102323 A1, hereinafter refer as to Lin) and in view of Singh (US Pub. No.: US 2006/0053289 A1, hereinafter refer as to Singh), further in view of Bolle et al. (US Patent No.: US 6,301,368 B1, hereinafter refer as to Bolle).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lin as modified by Singh discloses all claimed limitations except for step of hiding message data amongst other random information as part of a communicated message.
However, Bolle discloses step of hiding message data amongst other random information as part of a communicated message (col. 3 lines 45-67 discloses hides a given message in a compressed image at random sites, for example).
Lin as modified by Singh and Bolle are analogous art because they both are directed to systems require an input image to process, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the teachings of Lin as modified by Scharf with the specified features of Bolle because they are from the same field of endeavor.
In view of the above, having the method of Lin as modified by Singh and then given the well- established teaching of Bolle, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the teachings of Lin as modified by Singh with the teachings of Bolle in order for the use in wavelet-based compressed fingerprint images, [Bolle: Abstract].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US Pub. No.: US 2012/0102323 A1, hereinafter refer as to Lin) and in view of Singh (US Pub. No.: US 2006/0053289 A1, hereinafter refer as to Singh), further in view of Doberstein et al. (US Patent No.: US 5,809,148 B1, hereinafter refer as to Doberstein).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lin as modified by Singh discloses all claimed limitations except for the step of communicating binary decisions in encrypted form without the need to decode the encrypted data.
However, Doberstein discloses the step of communicating binary decisions in encrypted form without the need to decode the encrypted data (col. 3 line 20 and col. 4 line 13 discloses receiving a message comprising a message indicator and a plurality of encrypted blocks, for example).
Lin as modified by Singh and Doberstein are analogous art because they both are directed to secure communication between two or more users by sharing one or more pieces of information between the users, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the teachings of Lin as modified by Scharf with the specified features of Doberstein because they are from the same field of endeavor.
In view of the above, having the method of Lin as modified by Singh and then given the well- established teaching of Doberstein, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the teachings of Lin as modified by Singh with the teachings of Doberstein in order to provide secure communication between two or more users by sharing one or more pieces of information between the users, [Doberstein: Abstract].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Pertinent art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Herle (US Patent No.: US 7,165,173 B1) provide a mobile station for securely communicating with base stations in a wireless network and receiving at least one of a software program, a software correction patch and provisioning data from a server in the wireless network. The mobile station comprises: 1) an RF transceiver capable of receiving wireless messages from the plurality of base stations and converting the received wireless messages to a plurality of Internet protocol (IP) packets; 2) an encryption controller capable of converting the IP packets from an encrypted format to a decrypted format; and 3) a data burst message protocol controller capable of converting the decrypted IP packets to at least one data burst message,
Geiringer et al. (US Pub. No.: US 2004/0103286 A1) provide a method of validating an encrypted message, particularly although not exclusively in conjunction with a public key cryptosystem and Burch et al. (US Pub. No.: US 2013/0326218 A1) provide a secure message offloading are presented. An intermediary is transparently situated between a user's local messaging client and an external and remote messaging client. The user authenticates to the local client for access and the intermediary authenticates the user for access to the remote client using different credentials unknown to the user. Messages sent from the local client are transparently encrypted by the intermediary before being passed to the remote client and messages received from the remote client are transparently decrypted before being delivered to the local client.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIY GETACHEW whose telephone number is (571)272-6932. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Kambiz Zand can be reached at (571) 272-3811. 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.
A.G.
June 27, 2025
/ABIY GETACHEW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434