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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S.C not included in this section can be found in the prior office action.
The prior office actions are incorporated herein by reference. In particular, the observations with respect to claim language, and response to previously presented arguments.
Claim 1-8, 14 and 15 have been amended.
No new claims have been added.
No claims have been cancelled.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejection of the pending claims are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FURUYAMA TAKAHIRO et al. JP 2012175353 (Furuyama) in view of マイスター，ギーゼラ JP 2006504167 (hereinafter マイスター).
As per claim 1, Furuyama teaches: An information processing apparatus comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors and the one or more memories are configured to: determine, for partial data contained in electronic data to be a target of digital signature processing, a timing for calculation for generation of a code to be used in verification of authenticity of the partial data (“based on the data length of the transmission message, a time required to generate the message authentication code (MAC) or the electronic signature (MAC / electronic signature generation processing time tm) is calculated (S60), and the message authentication code (MAC) Alternatively, the predicted transmission time is determined so as to be later than the time when the generation of the electronic signature is completed (hereinafter also referred to as the authentication code / electronic signature generation completion time) (S30 to S90).” Furuyama: page 10, para. 4).
Furuyama does not teach; however, マイスター discloses: perform pre-calculation for generation of the code determined to be pre-calculable at a timing before a start of the digital signature processing, at the timing (“the integrated circuit 24 of the portable data storage medium 20 performs processing necessary for creating a digital signature (step 146). The integrated circuit 24 generally forms a hash value [the code] that exceeds the received portion of the electronic signature 40 and uses the secret key of the asymmetric key pair consisting of the secret key and the public key stored in the storage means 26. is encrypted.” マイスター: page: 10, para. 6 through page 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Furuyama with the teachings of マイスター to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in a predictable manner to secure system data.
As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Furuyama does not teach; however, マイスター discloses: a hash value is applied as the code (page: 10, para. 6 through page 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Furuyama with the teaching of マイスター to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of
the instant invention and would have been applied in order to authenticate intended
data.
As per claim 14, this claim defines a method that corresponds to the information processing apparatus of claim 1 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected with the same rational as the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 15, this claim defines non-transitory storage medium storing a program corresponding to method of claim 14 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 14. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 14.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuyama in view of マイスター and further in view of Ryu; Chang Woo et al. US 20140241338 (hereinafter Ryu).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Furuyama and マイスター does not teach; however, Ryu discloses: in a case where at least part of information contained in the partial data has been changed in response to input from a user, determine the timing for calculation for generation of the code while targeting the partial data (the terminal reboots and is automatically updates according to change of time by the user. Ryu: para. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Furuyama and マイスター with the teaching of Ryu to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to flexibility of the system.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuyama in view of マイスター and further in view of Leonard; Timothy US 20190258999 (hereinafter Leonard).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Furuyama and マイスター does not teach; however, Leonard discloses: the one or more processors and the one or more memories are further configured to, in a case where at least part of information contained in the partial data has been changed along with data transmission from an outside, determine the timing for calculation for generation of the code while targeting the partial data (the GPS system signs or hashes information based on updated data. Leonard: para. 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Furuyama and マイスター with the teaching of Leonard to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to validate updated information.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuyama in view of マイスター and further in view of Cherches; Barak et al. US 20230152980 (hereinafter Cherches).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Furuyama and マイスター does not teach; however, Cherches discloses: in a case where power of the information processing apparatus is turned ON, determine the timing for calculation for generation of the code while targeting the partial data contained in the electronic data ("By determining the hash value according to both the data of the block of the flash storage device 102 and the unique identifier of the flash storage device 102, the data integrity engine 108 validating the integrity of data read from the flash storage device 102 both authenticates the data as being unchanged since the boot or startup sequence and provides attestation that at run-time the flash storage device 102 is a genuine and/or authenticated device.". Cherches: para. 19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Furuyama and マイスター with the teaching of Cherches to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to ensure proper functionality of a device.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuyama in view of マイスター and further in view of Lattin; William L. et al. US 11080387 (hereinafter Lattin).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Furuyama and マイスター does not teach; however, Lattin discloses: in a case where the information processing apparatus has returned from a sleep state, determine the timing for calculation of generation of the code while targeting the partial data ("the encryption computation comprises a digital signature computation, a block cipher based message authentication code computation, or a hash-based message authentication code computation that uses a cryptographic hash function or a block cipher and one or more of the cryptographic key, a nonce, and static data. In some examples, the software is validated in response to the remote computing system transitioning from a sleep state to a fully functioning state.". Lattin: col. 2, lines 41-49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of combination of Furuyama and マイスター with the teaching of Lattin to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to ensure proper functionality of a device.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuyama in view of マイスター and further in view of Rupavatharam; Sreekanth et al. US 10887282 (hereinafter Rupavatharam).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Furuyama and マイスター does not teach; however, Rupavatharam discloses: each time a predetermined time period has elapsed, determine the timing for calculation for generation of the code while targeting the partial data ("Although the forgoing discussed using hash values for synchronization across the restart of a firewall/filter application, such hash values can be used for validation of programmed filters. More specifically, filters can be validated periodically, whereby the filter content in netfilter is checked against the hash stored in the comment to ensure that any third party utility/application or user from shell (using iptables) has not modified (unintentionally) the filters previously added by the firewall application. If a change is determined during a validation check (i.e., due to mis-matched hash values), an alarm can be raised." Rupavatharam: col. 20, lines 41-51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of combination of
Furuyama and マイスター with the teaching of Rupavatharam to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to ensure proper functionality of a device.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuyama in view of マイスター and further in view of Parr; lan David et al. US 20090106393 (hereinafter Parr).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Furuyama and マイスター does not teach; however, Parr discloses: perform the digital signature processing on a second code that is generated by targeting data containing the code, the second code being to be used in verification of authenticity of the partial data (parr: para. 61 and "obtaining a hash file for the data having an associated digital signature, wherein the hash file contains a hash value for each of the chunks of data; obtaining chunks of data, each chunk of data having an associated hash value; verifying the authenticity of the digitally signed hash file; verifying the authenticity of each of the chunks of data using the hash values in the hash file." Parr: para.80).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Furuyama and マイスター with the teaching of Parr to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to verify authenticity of data.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Furuyama in view of マイスター and further in view of Blythe; Jeremy et al. US 20220400300 (hereinafter Blythe).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination
of Furuyama and マイスター does not teach; however, Blythe teaches: perform calculation for generation of a code other than the code determined to be pre-calculable at a timing before the start of the digital signature processing, at a timing after the start of the digital signature processing ("in response to the determination, identifying an assertion condition included in the assertion check; validating the assertion condition using the observed media frame signatures included in each of the at least one received observed signature file; and if the assertion condition is validated, generating an output indicating that the media channel output, by the media system, is synchronized with the expected media channel output, otherwise if the assertion condition is not validated, generating the output [perform calculation for generation of a code after the start of the digital signature processing] indicating that the media channel output by the media system is not synchronized with the expected channel output.". Blythe: para. 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Furuyama and マイスター with the teaching of Blythe to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to verify authenticity of data.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Furuyama in view of マイスター in view of Blythe and further in view of Sone; Masaki US 20220311906 (hereinafter Sone).
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated herein. The combination of Furuyama, マイスター and Blythe does not teach; however, Sone discloses: the one or more processors and the one or more memories are further configured to divide, in a case where an operation mode of the information processing apparatus has been changed, the partial data into first partial data and second partial data, the first partial data containing information, among a series of information contained in the partial data, the second partial data containing pieces of information other than the information. ("The specific operation mode may have a plurality of operation modes including a first operation mode having a relatively high security level and a second operation mode having a relatively low security level. In this case, the encrypted data [partial data including first partial data and second partial data] may include data [firs partial data] specifying an operation mode to be permitted to be executed among the specific operation modes, and the execution propriety determination unit may permit execution of the program whose signature has been verified only in the specific operation mode." Sone: Para. 38) indicating that the code is pre-calculable ("In step S30, the execution propriety determination unit 111 of the control unit 110 determines whether or not the image forming apparatus 100 is in a specific operation mode (In this example, maintenance mode and debug mode). If the image forming apparatus 100 is in a specific operation mode, the control unit 110 advances the process to step S40" [pre-calculating step before signature processing]. Sone: para.25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Furuyama, and マイスター and Blythe with the teaching of Sone to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to activate different functionalities.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuyama in view of マイスター in view of Blythe in view of Sone and further in view of Lee; Morris et al. US 20060184961 (hereinafter Lee).
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated herein. The combination of Furuyama, and マイスター , Blythe and Sone does not teach; however, Lee discloses: merge, among the series of information contained in each of a plurality of pieces of the partial data, the pieces of information other than the information indicating that the code is pre-calculable into one piece of partial data, and calculate the code while targeting the partial data ("the signature generator 28 may combine or otherwise use portions of data packets to generate signatures. In particular, the signature generator 28 may concatenate cyclical redundancy check (CRC) values associated with the data packets in a manner that generates a series of digital values (i.e., signatures) that is substantially unique to the program data stream currently being extracted by the signal processor 24." Lee: para. 27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Furuyama, and マイスター , Blythe and Sone with the teaching of Lee to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to verify authenticity of data.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Furuyama in view of マイスター and further in view of Nakama; Shingo et al. US 20220255755 (hereinafter Nakama).
As per claim 11, the rejection claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of
Furuyama in view of マイスター does not teach; however, Nakama disclose: the partial data is at least either one of image data, meta data of the image data, and data related to image capturing conditions ("The decoder 201 processes the authenticated image from the second verification unit 210. The decoder 201 generates a digital signature of the result of processing the authenticated image, adds the digital signature to the result of processing the authenticated image, and outputs the result of processing the authenticated image." Nakama: para. 114).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Furuyama in view of マイスター with the teaching of Nakama to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to verify authenticity of an image.
As per claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. The
combination of Furuyama in view of マイスター does not teach; however, Nakama disclose: the information processing apparatus is an imaging apparatus for generating the image data according to an imaging result ("The machine learning unit 202 processes the image from the second verification unit 210. The machine learning unit 202 generates a digital signature of the result of processing the image from the second verification unit 210, adds the digital signature to the result of processing the image, and outputs the result of processing the image." Nakama: para. 118).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Furuyama in view of マイスター with the teaching of Nakama to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to display an intended image.
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 GHODRAT JAMSHIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1956. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 5712723862. 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.
/GHODRAT JAMSHIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493