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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Applicant’s submission of a preliminary amendment on 7/8/2024 has been received and considered. Applicant cancelled claims 19 – 50. Therefore, claims 1- 18 are pending.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5 – 8, 10, 11 and 14 - 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maetz et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0119538 A1) in view of Ciet et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0252327 A1).
As per claim 1, Maetz et al. discloses a computer-implemented method of performing obfuscated encryption of game assets in online games (3D objects are “assets of great value” used in games and within an online game, protected by confidentiality protection (encryption), see [0004] and [0005]), the method comprising: generating, by a game server, code for encrypting a game asset using a bijective function (an encryption device/sender (e.g., server or workstation) generates a set of secret functions using secret key K and selects an encryption (protection) function P to encrypt the object, see Fig. 1 and 9 and [0020], [0043], and [0072]); wherein the code consists of bijection primitives (Function Set Generation, [0048] – [0055]); encrypting, by the game server, the game asset using the generated code (the sender encrypts the object’s vertices using the selected protection (encryption) function, see Fig. 1:S13, Fig. 7, Fig. 9), wherein the encrypted game asset is configured to be decrypted at a client computing device using the generated code (see Fig.1, S15 – S18 and Fig. 9) and transmitting, by the game server, the encrypted game asset to the client computing device (see Fig.9 and [0071] and [0072]).
Maetz et al. does not expressly disclose at least one of the bijection primitives comprises an encryption algorithm.
Ciet et al. teaches combination white box/black box cryptographic processes, wherein a standard symmetric encryption algorithm (a block cipher such as AES/DES, itself a keyed bijection on the block) is implemented as the cryptographic core within obfuscated (white-box) code (see [0006], [0007], [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have implemented a standard symmetric encryption algorithm of Ciet as one of the reversible/bijective primitives of Maetz et al. in order to protect the gaming assets in discretion
As per claim 2, Maetz et al. discloses generating the code comprises using the bijective function to pseudo-randomly generate parameters corresponding to each of the bijection primitives (the function’s parameters pseudo-randomly using a PRNG seeded with the secret key K (see [0056] – [0061]).
As per claim 5, Maetz et al. discloses an encryption key associated with the encryption algorithm is provided external to the generated code (see Fig. 1: S15 – S16).
As per claim 6, Maetz et al. does not expressly disclose an encryption key associated with the encryption algorithm is embedded within the generated code. Ciet et al. teaches combination white box/black box cryptographic processes, wherein a standard symmetric encryption algorithm (a block cipher such as AES/DES, itself a keyed bijection on the block) is implemented as the cryptographic core within obfuscated (white-box) code (see [0006], [0007], [0017]). It would have been obvious to embed the cipher key within the generated code in view of Ciet al. to permit decryption on the untrusted client without separately distributing the key.
As per claim 7, Maetz et al. does not expressly disclose the encryption key associated with the encryption algorithm is obfuscated prior to being embedded within the generated code. Ciet et al. teaches block ciphers such as AES and DES which hides (obfuscates) the key of the implemented block cipher in a large collection of lookup tables (see [0006]).
As per claim 8, Maetz et al. does not expressly disclose code for the encryption algorithm is obfuscated using one or more bijection primitives. Ciet et al. teaches block ciphers such as AES and DES which hides (obfuscates) the key of the implemented block cipher in a large collection of lookup tables (see [0006], [0017] and [0039]).
As per claims 10, 11, 14 – 17, the instant claims are a system in which corresponds to the method of claims 1, 2, 5 – 8. Therefore, it is rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 3, 4, 9, 12, 13 and 18 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.
Maetz et al. in view of Ciet et al. does not expressly teach or disclose at least one of the bijection primitives comprises symmetric encryption in counter (CTR) mode and compiling the generated code into bytecode form, wherein the resulting bytecode is provided instead of an encryption key.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANKIT B DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. ~8:30 - ~5:30.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/ANKIT B DOSHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights