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 is in response to applicant’s response filed on 02/02/2026 to a Requirement for Election/Restriction mailed on 12/18/2025 for Application #18/617,436 filed on 03/26/2024 in which Claims 1-20 are pending, Claims 6-10 are withdrawn from current consideration due to a restriction election as non-elected claims.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 11-20 are now pending, of which Claims 1-2, 4-5, 11-12, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102, Claims 3, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant’s Most Recent Claim Set of 05/15/2024
Applicant’s most recent claim set of 05/15/2024 is considered to be the latest claim set under consideration by the examiner.
Prior Art Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 11-12, 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by American Bar Association (Digital Signature Guidelines Tutorial, American Bar Association Section of Science and Technology Information Security Committee, 2002).
Regarding Claim 1, American Bar Association discloses:
A communication method, wherein the method comprises: receiving first system information from a network device, wherein the first system information comprises a first signature; determining a first digest based on the first signature; determining a second digest based on the first system information; and in response to determining that the first digest matches the second digest, storing or applying the first system information [(American Bar Association Page 4 Par 5 Lines 1-7, Par 6 Lines 1-5, Par 7 Lines 1-12; Page 6 Par 6 Lines 1-5) where American Bar Association teaches the industry standard digital signature procedure, in which a message or file to be signed and transmitted from a sending network device to a receiving network device, is signed by the sender’s private key, the resulting signature being inserted into the signed message or signed file before transmission to the receiver, this signature created by computing a hash digest of a delimited area in the message or file to be signed, then signing the computed hash digest with the sender’s private key, creating a digital signature from the hash digest that is unique to both the message and the sender’s private key, then upon receipt of the message by the receiving network device, reversing the procedure by using the sender’s public key to retrieve the unsigned hash digest form the signature, then re-compute the hash over the received message’s delimited area using the same hash algorithm for comparison with the received signature’s decoded unsigned hash digest, with a match indicating that the signature is verified, and the transmitted message or file is authenticated, this is the identical procedure defined in these more broadly written claim limitations of Claim 1, and has been in regular use in industry as the industry standard PKI digital signature algorithm for decades].
Regarding Claim 2, American Bar Association discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the determining a second digest based on the first system information comprises: setting a field corresponding to the first signature in the first system information to preset content, to obtain first information; and determining the second digest based on the first information [(American Bar Association Page 4 Par 5 Lines 1-7, Par 6 Lines 1-5, Par 7 Lines 1-12; Page 6 Par 6 Lines 1-5) where American Bar Association teaches the industry standard PKI digital signature algorithm described above in the limitation coverage for the limitations of Claim 1, which also completely read on and cover these limitations in Claim 2] .
Regarding Claim 4, American Bar Association discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the determining a second digest based on the first system information comprises: when the first system information comprises second information and the first signature, determining the second digest based on the second information. [(American Bar Association Page 4 Par 5 Lines 1-7, Par 6 Lines 1-5, Par 7 Lines 1-12; Page 6 Par 6 Lines 1-5) where American Bar Association teaches the industry standard PKI digital signature algorithm described above in the limitation coverage for the limitations of Claim 1, plus additional information inserted into the message or file to be transmitted of a time-stamp that is capable of aiding in verifying the signature] .
Regarding Claim 5, American Bar Association discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the first signature is carried in an extension field in the first system information [(American Bar Association Page 4 Par 5 Lines 1-7, Par 6 Lines 1-5, Par 7 Lines 1-12; Page 6 Par 6 Lines 1-5) where American Bar Association teaches the industry standard PKI digital signature algorithm described above in the limitation coverage for the limitations of Claim 1, plus that the digital signature is normally attached to the transmitted message including the first system information, which indicates it would be in an extension field].
Regarding Claim 16, American Bar Association discloses:
The method according to claim 2, wherein the determining a second digest based on the first information comprises determining the second digest based on the first information by using a hash function [(American Bar Association Page 4 Par 5 Lines 1-7, Par 6 Lines 1-5, Par 7 Lines 1-12; Page 6 Par 6 Lines 1-5) where American Bar Association teaches the industry standard PKI digital signature algorithm described above in the limitation coverage for the limitations of Claim 1, including the use of a hash function in computing the hash digests used in creating the signature and verifying the signature based on the message or first information].
Regarding Claim 17, American Bar Association discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the first digest matches the second digest when the first digest and the second digest correspond based on a preset rule [(American Bar Association Page 4 Par 5 Lines 1-7, Par 6 Lines 1-5, Par 7 Lines 1-12; Page 6 Par 6 Lines 1-5) where American Bar Association teaches the industry standard PKI digital signature algorithm described above in the limitation coverage for the limitations of Claim 1, including that the first digest and the second digest correspond based on a preset rule that they need to match].
Regarding Claim 18, American Bar Association discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the first digest matches the second digest when the first digest is the same as the second digest [(American Bar Association Page 4 Par 5 Lines 1-7, Par 6 Lines 1-5, Par 7 Lines 1-12; Page 6 Par 6 Lines 1-5) where American Bar Association teaches the industry standard PKI digital signature algorithm described above in the limitation coverage for the limitations of Claim 1 including that the first digest and the second digest correspond when they match].
Regarding Claim 11:
It is an apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 12:
It is an apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim of claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 14:
It is an apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim of claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 15:
It is an apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim of claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 19:
It is an apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim of claim 16. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against claim 16 above.
Regarding Claim 20:
It is an apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim of claims 17 or 18. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against claims 17 or 18 above.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over American Bar Association (Digital Signature Guidelines Tutorial, American Bar Association Section of Science and Technology Information Security Committee, 2002) and further in view of Galand et al US Patent #6,317,433.
Regarding Claim 3, American Bar Association discloses:
The method according to claim 2, wherein:
American Bar Association does not appear to explicitly disclose:
the preset content is that all bits comprised in the field are 0; or the preset content is that all bits comprised in the field are 1
However, Galand et al discloses:
the preset content is that all bits comprised in the field are 0; or the preset content is that all bits comprised in the field are 1 [(Galand et al Column 4 Lines 20-23) where Galand et al teaches that as part of a computerized mathematical computation that all bits in a preset field are preset to 0].
American Bar Association and Galand et al are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are from the same “problem-solving area,”. Namely, they are all from the field of “information security”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of American Bar Association and the teachings of Galand et al by providing that that as part of a computerized mathematical computation that all bits in a preset field are preset to 0 as taught by Galand et al in the teaching described by American Bar Association.
The motivation for doing so would be to increase the usability and flexibility of American Bar Association by providing that as part of a computerized mathematical computation that all bits in a preset field are preset to 0 as taught by Galand et al in the teaching described by American Bar Association so as to utilize an Industry Standard computerized mathematical computation custom of presetting all bits in a preset field to an established value in order to affect the outcome of the computation in a predetermined fashion.
Regarding Claim 13:
It is an apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim of claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against claim 3 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al - US_20200145821: Lee et al teaches the use of signature verification in communication messages.
Paya et al - US_20080229111: Paya et al teaches authentication of signatures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY HOLDER whose telephone number is 571-270-3789. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10:00AM-7:00PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Linglan Edwards, can be reached on (571) 270-5440. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRADLEY W HOLDER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408