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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification is objected to because reference character “104” is used inconsistently or ambiguously. Reference character “104” is used to identify both a ROM (para. [0036], line 2) and interface circuits (IO/OUT) (para. [0039], line 1) in the description. Each element must have a unique reference character numeral consistent with the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the limitation: “a first data element…is not stored and made accessible in the memory” is contradictory and ambiguous. It is unclear whether the first data element is (a) never stored in memory, or (b) stored in the memory but is inaccessible. Applicant is required to clarify this limitation so that the scope of the claim is definite to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are dependent on claims 1, 8, and 15, and are therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 contain the trademark/trade name CRC32. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the CRC32 algorithm, a polynomial-based cyclic redundancy check function and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Applicant may wish to modify claim to recite the technical characteristics of the CRC function, such as polynomial type and/or bit-width, instead of using a trade name.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claims 1, 8, and 15:
Step 2A – Prong One:
The claims recite a “computer-implemented method for error detection of an encryption or decryption key, executed by an electronic device comprising a processor and a memory, wherein a first data element corresponding to the encryption or decryption key is not stored and made accessible in the memory and is divided in N second data elements independent from the first data element, each second data element being stored in the memory, and a result of an application of a XOR logic function to the N second elements being equal to the first data element.” The limitations “a first data element corresponding to the encryption or decryption key is not stored and made accessible in the memory and is divided in N second data elements independent from the first data element” and “a result of an application of a XOR logic function to the N second elements being equal to the first data element” recite mathematical concepts. These limitations are abstract ideas under Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, as described in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(1), and fall within the judicial exception of a mathematical concept.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The additional limitations of executing the method on an “electronic device comprising a processor and a memory,” are generic computer components performing conventional functions. These elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not improve the functioning of the computer, memory, or processor, and merely implement the abstract idea on generic hardware. Therefore, the claims do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception, under Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Step 2B:
There are no additional elements or limitations in claims 1, 8, and 15 that provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The claimed steps of dividing a data element, storing the divided parts, and applying an XOR function are performed on generic computer hardware. These are considered routine and conventional activities, as described in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Accordingly independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more and is not directed to statutory subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 9, and 16:
Step 2A – Prong One:
The claims recite “wherein at least one of the N second data elements is obtained randomly.” This limitation merely adds a mathematical operation of random selection to the abstract idea recited in claims 1, 8, and 15, as described in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(1).
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The additional limitations, combined with claim 1, 8, and 15’s generic computer components, are routine and conventional, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as described in MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Step 2B:
This limitation does not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into statutory subject matter. The claims remain directed to an abstract idea implemented on generic hardware.
Accordingly dependent claims 2, 9, and 16 are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more and is not directed to statutory subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Regarding dependent claims 3, 10, and 17:
Step 2A – Prong One:
The claims recite “wherein the cyclic redundancy check function is a cyclic redundancy check function of polynomial type.” This limitation is a mathematical algorithm, which is an abstract idea, as described in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(1).
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The additional limitation is implemented on a generic processor and memory, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as described in MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Step 2B:
There are no additional elements of the claims that provide significantly more. The claims are directed to a judicial exception without inventive concept.
Accordingly dependent claims 3, 10, and 17 are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more and is not directed to statutory subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Regarding dependent claims 4, 11, and 18:
Step 2A – Prong One:
The claims recite “wherein the cyclic redundancy check function is a cyclic redundancy check function of polynomial type used in an algorithm known under trade name CRC32.” This limitation merely specifies a known algorithm and is still a mathematical concept, which is an abstract idea, as described in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(1).
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The additional limitation being executed on a generic processor and memory, is routine and conventional, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as described in MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Step 2B:
This limitation does not add any inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into statutory subject matter. The claims remain directed to an abstract idea implemented on generic hardware.
Accordingly dependent claims 4, 11, and 18 are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more and is not directed to statutory subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Regarding dependent claims 5 and 12:
Step 2A – Prong One:
The claims recite “wherein integer N is greater than or equal to two.” This is a mathematical limitation, and does not change the abstract idea recited in claims 1 and 8, as described in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(1).
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The use of generic hardware does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as described in MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Step 2B:
This limitation does not add any inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into statutory subject matter. The claims remain directed to an abstract idea implemented on generic hardware.
Accordingly dependent claims 5 and 12 are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more and is not directed to statutory subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Regarding dependent claims 6, 13 and 20:
Step 2A – Prong One:
The claims recite “wherein the first data element is a key capable of being used in one or more types of encryption algorithms including AES.” This limitation merely specifies the type of data used in the abstract idea and does not modify it from being an abstract idea, as described in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(1).
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The execution of the claim limitation on a generic processor and memory is conventional and routine. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as described in MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Step 2B:
This limitation does not add any inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into statutory subject matter. The claims remain directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly dependent claims 6, 13 and 20 are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more and is not directed to statutory subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Regarding dependent claims 7 and 14:
Step 2A – Prong One:
The claims recite “wherein the first data element is a data element capable of being used in encryption methods including at least one of elliptic curve encryption algorithms, signature algorithms, or key encapsulation algorithms.” This limitation specifies particular types of data used in the abstract idea, but does not change the underlying abstract, as described in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(1).
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The use of generic computer hardware is routine and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as described in MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Step 2B:
This limitation does not add any inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into statutory subject matter. The claims remain directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Accordingly dependent claims 7 and 14 are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more and is not directed to statutory subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Regarding dependent claim 19:
Step 2A – Prong One:
The claim recites “wherein the first data element is an encryption or decryption key.” This limitation is tied to the abstract idea of claim 15, and is the mathematical processing of keys. The fact that it is a computer-readable medium does not remove the abstract idea, as the instructions stored in the medium still perform abstract operations, as described in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(1) and MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The medium of the claim is generic computer hardware that stores instructions. The claim limitation does not improve the function of the computer itself, as described in MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Step 2B:
This limitation does not add any inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into statutory subject matter. The claim just recites the medium storing instructions that implement the abstract idea.
Accordingly dependent claim 19 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more and is not directed to statutory subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salgado et al. (US 8,850,221), hereinafter Salgado, in view of Bettale et al. (US 11,132,466), hereinafter Bettale.
Regarding claim 1, Salgado teaches a computer-implemented method for error detection of an encryption or decryption key, executed by an electronic device comprising a processor and a memory, wherein a first data element corresponding to the encryption or decryption key is not stored and made accessible in the memory and is divided in N second data elements independent from the first data element (Salgado, col. 2, lines 62-64, "the method consists in dividing data to be checked into blocks, an intermediate integrity check value being computed for each block"), each second data element being stored in the memory, and a result of an application of a XOR logic function to the N second elements being equal to the first data element (Salgado, col. 3, lines 16-24, "For example, let's consider that data to be checked consists of a 56-bit DES key, and that a reference value associated with this key is stored with this key. This reference value ( e.g. a CRC) is typically computed at the time the key is generated or loaded. According to the invention, the key can be XORed with a 56-bit random value in order to produce a first random part, the second random part being the 56-bit random value. It should be noted that data to be checked could have been converted into more than two random parts").
Salgado fails to teach wherein an image of the first data element by a cyclic redundancy check function linear with respect to the XOR logic function is stored in the memory, and wherein the method comprises determining, by at least the processor, whether the image of the first data element by the cyclic redundancy check function is equal to an application of the XOR logic function to the images of N second elements by the cyclic redundancy check function.
However, Bettale, in an analogous art, teaches wherein an image of the first data element by a cyclic redundancy check function linear with respect to the XOR logic function is stored in the memory, and wherein the method comprises determining, by at least the processor, whether the image of the first data element by the cyclic redundancy check function is equal to an application of the XOR logic function to the images of N second elements by the cyclic redundancy check function (Bettale, Fig. 2, step E12, col. 7, lines 57-67).
Salgado and Bettale are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of cryptography.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Salgado to incorporate the teachings of Bettale.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to verify the integrity of sensitive data.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Salgado in view of Bettale teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the N second data elements is obtained randomly (Salgado, col. 3, lines 16-24, "According to a preferred embodiment, the data to be checked are converted into at least two random parts, the integrity check being computed on the random parts instead of being computed on the data to be checked. Each random part is therefore divided into blocks, and all blocks of all random parts are checked in random order [e.g. the intermediate integrity value of the 5th block of the 2nd random part may be computed after the intermediate integrity value of the 11th block of the 4th random part]").
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Salgado in view of Bettale teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the cyclic redundancy check function is a cyclic redundancy check function of polynomial type (Salgado, col. 5, lines 10-17, "For example, let's consider that data to be checked consist of a 56-bit DES key, and that a reference value associated with this key is stored with this key. This reference value [e.g. a CRC] is typically computed at the time the key is generated or loaded. According to the invention, the key can be XORed with a 56-bit random value in order to produce a first random part, the second random part being the 56-bit random value. It should be noted that data to be checked could have been converted into more than two random parts").
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Salgado in view of Bettale teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein integer N is greater than or equal to two (Salgado, col. 5, lines 41-45, "According to the invention, the key can be XORed with a 56-bit random value in order to produce a first random part, the second random part being the 56-bit random value. It should be noted that data to be checked could have been converted into more than two random parts”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Salgado in view of Bettale teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first data element is a key capable of being used in one or more types of encryption algorithms including AES (Bettale, col. 6, lines 49-56, “The succession of operations corresponds, for example, to a cryptographic algorithm of which the material implementation is done in an entity external to the electronic entity 1. For example, it can be done in a cryptoprocessor or a coprocessor. The cryptographic algorithm can, for example, be of the "advanced encryption standard" (AES) or "triple DES" (3DES) or "SEED" type, or also of "governmental standard" (GOST) type”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Salgado to incorporate the teachings of Bettale by including the functionality of utilizing keys that are capable of being used in one or more types of encryption algorithms like AES.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would because encryption algorithms such as AES are standard in the field of cryptography & encryption.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Salgado in view of Bettale teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first data element is a data element capable of being used in encryption methods including at least one of elliptic curve encryption algorithms, signature algorithms, or key encapsulation algorithms (Salgado, col. 11, lines 18-21, "The data to be checked during the above cryptographic operation may consist of cryptographic keys, such as an RSA private key used for the computation of an RSA digital signature"; RSA equates to a signature algorithm).
Claim 8 is a device with limitations similar to the method of claim 1, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 9 is a device with limitations similar to the method of claim 2, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 10 is a device with limitations similar to the method of claim 3, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 12 is a device with limitations similar to the method of claim 5, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 13 is a device with limitations similar to the method of claim 6, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 14 is a device with limitations similar to the method of claim 7, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium with limitations similar to the method of claim 1, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 16 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium with limitations similar to the method of claim 1, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 17 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium with limitations similar to the method of claim 3, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Salgado in view of Bettale teaches the computer-readable medium according to claim 15, wherein the first data element is an encryption or decryption key (Salgado, col. 3, lines 36-38, "For example, let's consider that data to be checked consists of a 56-bit DES key, and that a reference value associated with this key is stored with this key").
Claim 20 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium with limitations similar to the method of claim 7, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hogan (US 6,252,961) teaches a method of performing error correction on encrypted data using XOR operations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE V BRADEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5381. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9AM-5:30 PM 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, Albert Decady can be reached at (571) 272-3819. 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.
/G.V.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2112
/ALBERT DECADY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2112