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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
In the arguments filed on 11/11/2025, Applicant asserts that the combination of Fontana ‘709 in view of Ortner ‘653 fails to teach or suggest the limitations of claims 1, 10 and 19 for at least the following three reasons:
1) Applicant asserts that Fontana and Ortner fail to disclose "generating, by a computing entity and based on a cryptographic key, a decryption application that corresponds to an encrypted data instance," as recited in independent claim 1, because “nothing in Fontana contemplates the generation of a decryption application, and instead Fontana simply provides for the receipt and use of a "security key," which is not an executable file” – See pg. 4; also because “As with Fontana, the element in Ortner that is decrypted is not "a decryption application," but merely a key” – See pg. 4. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, with respect to Fontana ‘709, Applicant argues that Fontana ‘709 fails to disclose a claimed decryption application. However, as shown in FIG. 1 and described in [0016], “the protected software application 20” includes “encrypted software code 36” and functionality for performing decryption. Accordingly, “the protected software application 20” clearly corresponds to the claimed decryption application. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the claimed decryption application is not required to be “an executable file” in the above limitation. Moreover, to the extent such an interpretation is required, Ortner ‘653 teaches this aspect (see OA pg. 12), and the combination of Fontana ‘709 in view of Ortner ‘653 addresses this feature.
Second, Applicant contends that the decrypted element in Ortner ‘653 is merely a key and not a decryption application. However, as described in FIG. 10 and [0216], “the key 1024 itself may be encrypted ... for local recovery of a file ...”. Thus, consistent with Applicant’s explanation, the key is indeed an element that is to be decrypted (see also FIG. 13 and [0219], which recites “decrypt a copy of the decryption key wrapped in the container”). Further, [0219] indicates that this decrypted key is then used to unwrap (i.e., decrypt) the encrypted file (a claimed encrypted data instance) stored in the container (a claimed decryption application). Applicant’s argument appears to require that the decryption application itself be the object that is decrypted. However, the claim recites “decrypt the encrypted data instance, not decrypt the decryption application. Under a reasonable interpretation, a decryption application is the entity that performs decryption, rather than the subject of decryption. Accordingly, Applicant’s interpretation is inconsistent with the claim language.
Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
2) Applicant contends that Fontana and Ortner fail to disclose the “the decryption application is a self-contained application that is fully executable without use of external libraries” – see pg. 4. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Ortner ‘653, as illustrated in FIG. 10, describes a method for “creating portable encrypted content.” As disclosed in [0209], a file 1006 to be transmitted is encrypted using a key, and at the recipient side, a decryption key (or encryption key) is obtained (i.e., decrypted) via password input, thereby enabling decryption (i.e., unwrapping) of the encrypted file. Further, [0214] discloses that the container 1014 (the decryption application) includes a number of software components as well as the cryptographic tools 1018, and explicitly states that “no additional cryptographic libraries are required on a recipient machine.” In view of these disclosures, the cited portions of Ortner ‘653 teach “the decryption application is a self-contained application that is fully executable without use of external libraries.”
Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
3) Applicant argues that The Office Action also fails to present a sufficient rationale for producing the FontanaOrtner combination because “it is unclear how producing a "portable encrypted data object" for "secure distribution over the data network" would arrive at the combination recited in independent claim 1”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Fontana ‘709 teaches creating an application that includes an encrypted data instance together with a decryption algorithm and a corresponding key for decrypting the encrypted data instance. Ortner ‘653 likewise teaches an encrypted data instance and routines and keys for decrypting the encrypted data instance, and further emphasizes that such functionality is provided in a self-contained application. As taught by Ortner ‘653, the self-contained nature of the application is particularly important because, without it, “secure distribution over the data network” would not be achievable. Specifically, Ortner ‘653 teaches that secure delivery is facilitated by avoiding reliance on external libraries that may be vulnerable to attack, and instead enabling data recovery solely based on user-provided credentials, such as a password. Thus, such a combination allows the data to be securely distributed by delivering only the container, while permitting the recipient to access the data without requiring additional external software components. Therefore, the motivation to combine Fontana ‘709 in view of Ortner ‘653 is reasonable, and the proposed combination yields predictable and advantageous results consistent with the teach of the prior art.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 10 and 19 under 35 USC 103 is maintained.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1, 10 and 19 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. US-11995194-B1 (hereinafter “Pat-194”) in view of Ortner ‘653.
Per claim 1 (independent):
Claims / App Language
Pat-194 Language
1
A method for generating an encryption bundle, the method comprising:
generating, by a computing entity and based on a cryptographic key, a decryption application that corresponds to an encrypted data instance, wherein:
the decryption application is a self-contained application that is fully executable without use of external libraries,
the decryption application includes at least a portion of a decryption key, and
the decryption application is configured to execute a decryption algorithm corresponding to a cryptographic technique to decrypt the encrypted data instance based on the decryption key; and
in response to generating the decryption application, bundling, by the computing entity, the encrypted data instance and the decryption application to generate the encryption bundle
1
A method for providing an encrypted data instance, the method comprising:
encrypting, by a computing entity, an instance of data using a cryptographic key and a cryptographic technique to generate the encrypted data instance;
generating, by the computing entity, a decryption application based on the cryptographic key and at least one credential, wherein:
the decryption application is a self-contained application that is fully-executable without use of external libraries,
the decryption application includes at least a portion of a decryption key, and
the decryption application is configured to execute a decryption algorithm corresponding to the cryptographic technique to decrypt the encrypted data instance based on the decryption key;
bundling, by the computing entity, the encrypted data instance and the decryption application to generate an encryption bundle,
wherein: the decryption application, when executed, is configured to use the at least one credential to (a) decrypt the decryption key or (b) generate the decryption key, and
the encrypted data instance included in the encryption bundle may be decrypted by the decryption application using the decryption key; and
providing the encryption bundle to be stored by an external data repository.
Pat-194 does not disclose but Ortner ‘653 discloses: “in response to generating the decryption application” ([0214], The container 1014 may include a number of software components ... the user interface logic 1016 may include tools for various types of key retrieval ... by receiving a password in a local user interface and using the password to recover the key 1024 that is encrypted (in response to generating the decryption application, that is, the container 1014) and wrapped in the container 1014). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pat-194 with the distribution of portable encrypted content wrapped in the container as taught by Ortner ‘653 because it would create a portable encrypted data object containing the file for secure distribution over the data network [0010]
Per claim 10 (independent):
Claims / App Language
Pat-194 Language
10
An apparatus for generating an encryption bundle, the apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to:
generate, based on a cryptographic key, a decryption application that corresponds to an encrypted data instance, wherein: the decryption application is a self-contained application that is fully executable without use of external libraries,
the decryption application includes at least a portion of a decryption key, and
the decryption application is configured to execute a decryption algorithm corresponding to a cryptographic technique to decrypt the encrypted data instance based on the decryption key; and
in response to generating the decryption application, bundle the encrypted data instance and the decryption application to generate the encryption bundle.
16
An apparatus for providing an encrypted data instance, the apparatus comprising:
processing circuitry configured to:
encrypt an instance of data using a cryptographic key and a cryptographic technique to generate the encrypted data instance;
generate a decryption application based on the cryptographic key and at least one credential, wherein: the decryption application is a self-contained application that is fully-executable without use of external libraries,
the decryption application includes at least a portion of a decryption key, and
the decryption application is configured to execute a decryption algorithm corresponding to the cryptographic technique to decrypt the encrypted data instance based on the decryption key; and
bundle the encrypted data instance and the decryption application to generate an encryption bundle,
wherein:
the decryption application, when executed, is configured to use the at least one credential to a decrypt the decryption key or (b) generate the decryption key, and
the encrypted data instance included in the encryption bundle may be decrypted by the decryption application using the decryption key; and
communications circuitry configured to:
provide the encryption bundle to be stored by an external data repository.
The limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim 1 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to claim 1.
Per claim 19 (independent):
Claims / App Language
Pat-194 Language
19
A computer program product for generating an encryption bundle, the computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing software instructions that, when executed, causes an apparatus to:
generate, based on a cryptographic key, a decryption application that corresponds to an encrypted data instance, wherein:
the decryption application is a self-contained application that is fully executable without use of external libraries,
the decryption application includes at least a portion of a decryption key, and
the decryption application is configured to execute a decryption algorithm corresponding to a cryptographic technique to decrypt the encrypted data instance based on the decryption key; and
in response to generating the decryption
application, bundle the encrypted data instance and the decryption application to generate the encryption bundle.
16
An apparatus for providing an encrypted data instance, the apparatus comprising:
processing circuitry configured to:
encrypt an instance of data using a cryptographic key and a cryptographic technique to generate the encrypted data instance;
generate a decryption application based on the cryptographic key and at least one credential, wherein: the decryption application is a self-contained application that is fully-executable without use of external libraries,
the decryption application includes at least a portion of a decryption key, and
the decryption application is configured to execute a decryption algorithm corresponding to the cryptographic technique to decrypt the encrypted data instance based on the decryption key; and
bundle the encrypted data instance and the decryption application to generate an encryption bundle,
wherein:
the decryption application, when executed, is configured to use the at least one credential to a decrypt the decryption key or (b) generate the decryption key, and
the encrypted data instance included in the encryption bundle may be decrypted by the decryption application using the decryption key; and
communications circuitry configured to:
provide the encryption bundle to be stored by an external data repository.
The limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim 1 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to claim 1.
Claim(s) 2-9, 11-18 and 20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 16-20 of Pat-194. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Per claim 2 (dependent on claim 1):
Claim 1 of Pat-194 anticipates all the claimed limitations of claim 2.
Per claim 3 (dependent on claim 2):
Claim 2 of Pat-194 anticipates all the claimed limitations of claim 3.
Per claim 4 (dependent on claim 2):
Claim 3 of Pat-194 anticipates all the claimed limitations of claim 4.
Per claim 5 (dependent on claim 1):
Claim 4 of Pat-194 anticipates all the claimed limitations of claim 5.
Per claim 6 (dependent on claim 1):
Claim 5 of Pat-194 anticipates all the claimed limitations of claim 6.
Per claim 7 (dependent on claim 1):
Claim 6 of Pat-194 anticipates all the claimed limitations of claim 7.
Per claim 8 (dependent on claim 1):
Claim 7 of Pat-194 anticipates all the claimed limitations of claim 8.
Per claim 9 (dependent on claim 1):
Claim 8 of Pat-194 anticipates all the claimed limitations of claim 9.
Per claim 11 (dependent on claim 10):
Claim 16 of Pat-194 anticipates all the claimed limitations of claim 11.
Per claim 12 (dependent on claim 11):
Claim 17 of Pat-194 anticipates all the claimed limitations of claim 12.
Per claim 13 (dependent on claim 11):
Claim 18 of Pat-194 anticipates all the claimed limitations of claim 13.
Per claim 14 (dependent on claim 10):
Claim 19 of Pat-194 anticipates all the claimed limitations of claim 14.
Per claim 15 (dependent on claim 10):
Claim 20 of Pat-194 anticipates all the claimed limitations of claim 15.
Per claim 16 (dependent on claim 10):
Claim 6 of Pat-194 anticipates all the claimed limitations of claim 16.
Per claim 17 (dependent on claim 10):
Claim 7 of Pat-194 anticipates all the claimed limitations of claim 17.
Per claim 18 (dependent on claim 10):
Claim 8 of Pat-194 anticipates all the claimed limitations of claim 18.
Per claim 20 (dependent on claim 10):
Claim 8 of Pat-194 anticipates all the claimed limitations of claim 20.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, 10, 16-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontana et al., US- 20190044709-A1 (hereinafter “Fontana ‘709”) in view of Ortner et al., US-20170302653-A1 (hereinafter “Ortner ‘653”).
Per claim 1 (independent):
Fontana ‘709 discloses: A method for generating an encryption bundle, the method comprising:
generating, by a computing entity and based on a cryptographic key, a decryption application that corresponds to an encrypted data instance, wherein:
(FIG. 1, [0016], a software application 14 (data instance to be encrypted) is protected from tampering through the use of encryption keys generated from a license key 10 associated with a license for the software application 14. One of the encryption keys is used to encrypt the software application 14 (generating an encrypted data instance) resulting in the protected software application 20 (including a decryption application which performs decrypts 34 of FIG. 1) – generating a decryption application that corresponds to an encrypted data instance. One of the encryption keys (the communication key 16, that is, a cryptographic key) is then bundled with the protected software application 20 – generating, by a computing entity and based on a cryptographic key, a decryption application – and another one of the encryption keys is stored in a security domain 22);
the decryption application is configured to execute a decryption algorithm corresponding to a cryptographic technique to decrypt the encrypted data instance based on the decryption key (FIG. 1, [0019], When the protected software is invoked on the computer ... The communication key 16 bundled with the protected software application 20 is used to decrypt 30 the encrypted security key 28. The resulting decrypted security key 32 is then used to decrypt 34 the encrypted software code 36 (decrypt the encrypted data instance based on the decryption key). The resulting decrypted software code 38 may then be executed 40; Note that it is self-evident that the protected software application 20 should include at least one decryption algorithm. Moreover, claim language does not specify what this algorithm is).
Fontana ‘709 does not include but Ortner ‘653 disclose: the decryption application is a self-contained application that is fully executable without use of external libraries;
the decryption application includes at least a portion of a decryption key, and
in response to generating the decryption application, bundling, by the computing entity, the encrypted data instance and the decryption application to generate the encryption bundle
(FIG. 10, [0209], for creating portable encrypted content. In general, the system may include a host 1004 (the computing entity) ... the user may select a file 1006 (the data instance to be encrypted) that the user wishes to send to a recipient ... A user may also supply a password in the user interface that can be used as described below to locally unwrap (i.e., decryption; also see FIG. 13 and [0219]) the file from a container 1014 (the encryption bundle including the decryption application and the (encrypted) file) for portable encrypted content without access to a remote key server or other remote resources; [0214], The container 1014 may include a number of software components ... the user interface logic 1016 may include tools for various types of key retrieval ... by receiving a password in a local user interface (in response to generating the decryption application for the file that the user requested) and using the password to recover the key 1024 that is encrypted and wrapped in the container 1014 (bundling, by the computing entity, the encrypted data instance (i.e., the file 1006) and the decryption application). Cryptographic tools 1018 may also be included in the container 1014 so that no additional cryptographic libraries are required on a recipient machine – a self-contained application that is fully executable without use of external libraries; [0216], The file 1006 (the encrypted data instance) may be encrypted using the key 1024 (a portion of a decryption key, which is included in the container 1014 according to FIG. 10) ... the key 1024 itself ... may be encrypted and wrapped into the container 1014 for local recovery of a file by anyone with the appropriate password 1008).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fontana ‘709 with the distribution of portable encrypted content wrapped in the container that has no need of additional cryptographic libraries as taught by Ortner ‘653 because it would create a portable encrypted data object containing the file for secure distribution over the data network [0010]. Additionally, Ortner ‘653 is analogous to the claimed invention because it teaches a system for creating portable encrypted content [0209].
Per claim 7 (dependent on claim 1):
Fontana ‘709 in view of Ortner ‘653 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference.
Fontana ‘709 discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the decryption application is generated using at least one credential, wherein the at least one credential is a passcode (FIG. 10, [0214], The container 1014 (including the decryption application) may include a number of software components ... the user interface logic 1016 may include tools for various types of key retrieval ... by receiving a password (one credential, i.e., a passcode) in a local user interface and using the password to recover the key 1024 that is encrypted and wrapped in the container 1014).
Per claim 8 (dependent on claim 1):
Fontana ‘709 in view of Ortner ‘653 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference.
Fontana ‘709 discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the decryption application is generated based at least in part on a private key which is a counterpart to the cryptographic key (FIG. 1, [0019], When the protected software (including the decryption application) is invoked on the computer ... The communication key 16 (the cryptographic key) bundled with the protected software application 20 is used to decrypt 30 the encrypted security key 28 (a private key). The resulting decrypted security key 32 is then used to decrypt 34 the encrypted software code 36. The resulting decrypted software code 38 may then be executed 40).
Per claim 10 (independent):
The limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim 1 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to claim 1.
Per claim 16 (dependent on claim 10):
Fontana ‘709 in view of Ortner ‘653 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 10 above, incorporated herein by reference.
The limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim 7 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to claim 7.
Per claim 17 (dependent on claim 10):
Fontana ‘709 in view of Ortner ‘653 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 10 above, incorporated herein by reference.
The limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim 8 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to claim 8.
Per claim 19 (independent):
The limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim 1 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to claim 1.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontana ‘709 in view of Ortner ‘653 and ROBERTS, US-20170046531-A1 (hereinafter “ROBERTS ‘531”).
Per claim 2 (dependent on claim 1):
Fontana ‘709 in view of Ortner ‘653 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference.
Fontana ‘709 in view of Ortner ‘653 does not disclose but ROBERTS ‘531 discloses: The method of claim 1, further comprising providing, by the computing entity, the encryption bundle to be stored by an external data repository (FIG. 1, [0036], Once synchronization is complete, the client's cloud storage data 154 (the encryption bundle) is stored on one or more servers 152 in the cloud storage provider system 150 (an external data repository), and the data 154 includes a CC unit 160 with a copy of the CC program 162 along with the data 164 encrypted on the client device 110 by the CC module 140.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fontana ‘709 in view of Ortner ‘653 with the storage of the Cloud Crypter unit (i.e., the encryption bundle) to a client’s cloud storage via synchronization as taught by ROBERTS ‘531 because it would provide enhanced data security for data stored and access via a cloud storage service without modification of such services or actions by the cloud storage providers [0011]. Additionally, ROBERTS ‘531 is analogous to the claimed invention because it teaches a cloud storage system or network 100 that is configured with enhanced data security [0031].
Per claim 3 (dependent on claim 2):
Fontana ‘709 in view of Ortner ‘653 and ROBERTS ‘531 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 2 above, incorporated herein by reference.
Fontana ‘709 in view of Ortner ‘653 does not disclose but ROBERTS ‘531 discloses: The method of claim 2, wherein the external data repository is operated by a third party (FIG. 1, [0036], Once synchronization is complete, the client's cloud storage data 154 is stored on one or more servers 152 in the cloud storage provider system 150 (the external data repository), and the data 154 includes a CC unit 160 with a copy of the CC program 162 along with the data 164 encrypted on the client device 110 by the CC module 140; [0005], A hosting company (or cloud storage provider; a third party) typically owns and manages the physical storage; [0006], People and organizations (or cloud storage users) buy or lease storage capacity from the cloud storage providers).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fontana ‘709 in view of Ortner ‘653 with the storage of the Cloud Crypter unit (i.e., the encryption bundle) to a client’s cloud storage via synchronization as taught by ROBERTS ‘531 because it would provide enhanced data security for data stored and access via a cloud storage service without modification of such services or actions by the cloud storage providers [0011].
Per claim 4 (dependent on claim 2):
Fontana ‘709 in view of Ortner ‘653 and ROBERTS ‘531 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 2 above, incorporated herein by reference.
Fontana ‘709 in view of Ortner ‘653 does not disclose but ROBERTS ‘531 discloses: The method of claim 2, wherein the external data repository is part of a cloud-based data storage system (FIG. 1, [0036], Once synchronization is complete, the client's cloud storage data 154 is stored on one or more servers 152 in the cloud storage provider system 150 (a cloud-based data storage system), and the data 154 includes a CC unit 160 with a copy of the CC program 162 along with the data 164 encrypted on the client device 110 by the CC module 140; [0005], A hosting company (or cloud storage provider) typically owns and manages the physical storage; [0006], People and organizations (or cloud storage users) buy or lease storage capacity from the cloud storage providers).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fontana ‘709 in view of Ortner ‘653 with the storage of the Cloud Crypter unit (i.e., the encryption bundle) to a client’s cloud storage via synchronization as taught by ROBERTS ‘531 because it would provide enhanced data security for data stored and access via a cloud storage service without modification of such services or actions by the cloud storage providers [0011].
Per claim 11 (dependent on claim 10):
Fontana ‘709 in view of Ortner ‘653 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 10 above, incorporated herein by reference.
The limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim 2 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to claim 2.
Per claim 12 (dependent on claim 11):
Fontana ‘709 in view of Ortner ‘653 and ROBERTS ‘531 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 11 above, incorporated herein by reference.
The limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim 3 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to claim 3.
Per claim 13 (dependent on claim 11):
Fontana ‘709 in view of Ortner ‘653 and ROBERTS ‘531 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 11 above, incorporated herein by reference.
The limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim 4 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to claim 4.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontana ‘709 in view of Ortner ‘653 and V. B. Dang et al., "Implementing and Benchmarking Three Lattice-Based Post-Quantum Cryptography Algorithms Using Software/Hardware Codesign," 2019 International Conference on Field-Programmable Technology (ICFPT), Tianjin, China, 2019, pp. 206-214 (hereinafter “Dang ‘019”).
Per claim 5 (dependent on claim 1):
Fontana ‘709 in view of Ortner ‘653 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference.
Fontana ‘709 in view of Ortner ‘653 does not disclose but Dang ‘019 discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the cryptographic technique is a post-quantum cryptography (PQC) cryptographic technique ([Abstract], develop new standards based on algorithms that are resistant to quantum computer attacks and capable of being executed on traditional computing platforms, such as microprocessors and FPGAs. Leading candidates for new standards include lattice-based post-quantum cryptography (PQC) algorithms (a post-quantum cryptography (PQC) cryptographic technique). In this paper, we present the results of implementing and benchmarking three lattice-based key encapsulation mechanisms (KEMs) that have progressed to Round 2 of the NIST standardization process. Our implementations are based on a software/hardware codesign approach, which is particularly applicable to the current stage of the NIST PQC standardization process).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fontana ‘709 in view of Ortner ‘653 with the lattice-based post-quantum cryptography (PQC) algorithms as taught by Dang ‘019 because they would be resistant to quantum computer attacks and capable of being executed on traditional computing platforms [Abstract]. Additionally, Dang ‘019 is analogous to the claimed invention because it teaches implementing and benchmarking three lattice-based key encapsulation mechanisms (KEMs).
Per claim 14 (dependent on claim 10):
Fontana ‘709 in view of Ortner ‘653 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 10 above, incorporated herein by reference.
The limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim 5 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to claim 5.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontana ‘709 in view of Ortner ‘653 and DENG, US-20190342070-A1 (hereinafter “DENG ‘070”).
Per claim 6 (dependent on claim 1):
Fontana ‘709 in view of Ortner ‘653 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference.
Fontana ‘709 in view of Ortner ‘653 does not disclose but DENG ‘070 discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the decryption application is a one use only or limited number of uses application ([0056], ARTCRYPTO secure architecture, the file is designed to selfdestroyed after a local user fail to access the file, for example three times (limited number of uses application), in an isolated environment (where the system is not connected to the internet). It is difficult for a quantum computer to analyze and catch up with the on-the-fly FKCA key stream).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fontana ‘709 in view of Ortner ‘653 with the limit of numbers to access the file for obtaining the FKCA key stream as taught by DENG ‘070 because it is difficult for a quantum computer to analyze and catch up with the on-the-fly FKCA key stream [0056]. Additionally, DENG ‘070 is analogous to the claimed invention because it teaches the ART-CRYPTO secure architecture is to provide digital files security through a Cipher Engine (CE), Identity Authorization and Management (IAM) distributed system [0038].
Per claim 15 (dependent on claim 10):
Fontana ‘709 in view of Ortner ‘653 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 10 above, incorporated herein by reference.
The limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim 6 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 9, 18 and 20 is/are 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SANGSEOK PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-4332. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:30 and Alternate Fridays 9:00 am-5:00 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, PHILIP CHEA can be reached at (571)272-3951. 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.
/SANGSEOK PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499