DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/19/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted by applicant 02/23/2026 has/have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Form PTO-1449 signed and attached hereto.
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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochalov et al (US Patent Application No. 20200304292) ( hereinafter Mochalov) in view of “Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4880; Obsoletes: 1991, 2440; Category: Standards Track; J. Callas ; PGP Corporation; L. Donnerhacke; IKS GmbH; H. Finney; PGP Corporation D. Shaw; R. Thayer; November 2007; pages 1-90” (Hereinafter RFC)
As per claims 1, 9, and 15, Mochalov discloses a processor, method and system comprising: one or more circuits to: obtain one or more neural network parameter files to be encrypted or decrypted, the one or more neural network parameter files specifying one or more neural network parameters including at least one of one or more neural network weights, one or more neural network biases, one or more neural network activation functions, one or more neural network learning rates, a number of neural network layers, or a number of nodes of one or more neural network layers (para 34-43, ANN parameters [weights, inputs, outputs] used in encryption process);
determine one or more cryptographic algorithm indicators for the one or
more neural network parameter files (para 37-43, ANN selects encryption Algorithm);
identify, based on the determined one or more cryptographic algorithm indicators, one or more cryptographic algorithms from among a plurality of cryptographic algorithms (para 38, AES, 3DES, ChaCha..) to encrypt or decrypt at least a portion of a the one or more neural network parameter files (para 37-43, encrypts data using ANN-selected Algorithm); and
encrypt or decrypt the at least a portion of the one or more neural network parameter files data using the identified one or more encryption cryptographic algorithms, wherein the one or more encryption cryptographic algorithm indicators (para 37-43, ANN output determines algorithm. ANN output functions as an indicator of which algorithm to use).
Mochalov does not explicitly disclose cryptographic algorithm indicators are provided as metadata within an archive file for the one or more neural network parameter files. However, RFC discloses cryptographic algorithm indicators are provided as metadata within an archive file for the one or more neural network parameter files (see sections 5.1 and 5.2, algorithm identifiers are stored in octets within the packet structure. This is metadata describing how the data was encrypted)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mochalov and RFC. RC teaches storing cryptographic related parameters in structured octet sequences, which constitute data field associated with cryptographic processing. It is well known in the art (e.g. archive file formats) to store cryptographic algorithm identifiers as metadata within data structures. One of the ordinary skill would have found obvious to encode such algorithm identifiers within structured data (e.g. Octet sequences) as part of the data representation.
The Examiner notes that this motivation applies to all dependent and/or otherwise subsequently addressed claims.
As per claim 2 and 16, claims are rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, RFC discloses wherein the one or more circuits are to cause a mapping of cryptographic algorithm indicators to cryptographic algorithms to be stored (section 3.7.2.1, the S2K specifier structure creates a mapping. Algorithm octet then 2Ktype then Salt value).
As per claim 3, 14, and 17, claims are rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, RFC discloses wherein the one or more circuits are to cause a mapping of cryptographic algorithm indicators to encryption algorithms to be stored as part of a software to use information encrypted using one or more cryptographic algorithms identified by one or more cryptographic algorithm indicators (see 5.5.3, secret key encryption where MPIs are encrypted and only accessible through proper decryption).
As per claims 4, 13, and 18, claims are rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, RFC discloses wherein the one or more cryptographic algorithm indicators comprise one or more opaque identifiers of the one or more cryptographic algorithms (see section 9.2, algorithm identifiers are numeric octets (0-255) that act as opaque references to specific algorithms (e.g. 1=IDEA, 2=3DES, 7= AES-128).
As per claims 5, 12, and 19, claims are rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, RFC discloses wherein the one or more circuits are to cause the one or more cryptographic algorithms to be identified by the one or more cryptographic algorithm identifiers by associating an encryption algorithm and a salt with an cryptographic algorithm indicator (see sections, 3.7.2.1 and 3.7.1.3 (salted S2K (octets 2-9, 8-octet salt value) and iterated -salted S2K explicitly store salt identifiers with encrypted data.).
As per claim 6 and 11, claims are rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, RFC discloses wherein the one or more circuits are to cause the one or more cryptographic algorithm indicators to be used to identify one or more salts (see sections, 3.7.1.2 and 3.7.1.3 (salted S2K (octets 2-9, 8-octet salt value and iterated -salted S2K explicitly store salt identifiers with encrypted data).
As per claims 7 and 10, claims are rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, RFC discloses wherein the one or more circuits are to cause information to be encrypted to be decryptable using at least both of a key of a user and cryptographic information stored as part of software to use the information, wherein the cryptographic information is indicated by the one or more cryptographic algorithm indicators (see 5.5.3, secret key encryption where MPIs are encrypted and only accessible through proper decryption).
As per claims 8 and 20, claims are rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, Liu discloses wherein the one or more circuits are to further cause information to be encrypted using at least both of a key of a user and an cryptographic algorithm identified by an cryptographic algorithm indicator (see sections 5.1 and 5.3, Explicitly describes encrypting with user’s key and storing algorithm identifiers).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, please see the rejection above.
Note: There is a possible Double Patenting rejection with copending Application No. 18/612,992.
Conclusion
Please see the attached PTO-892 for the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD A SIDDIQI whose telephone number is (571)272-3976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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 G Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/MOHAMMAD A SIDDIQI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493