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 action is responsive to application filed on 05/06/2024. In the application,
Claims 1 and 11 are independent, and Claims 1-20 are pending and being considered.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because (1) the abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length, (2) the abstract recites phrases “The present disclosure relates to ...” which can be implied and therefore should be avoided, and (3) the abstract recites phrases, “This non-transitory system ...” which should be corrected and read as “A non-transitory computer-readable medium... ”. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the
presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
No drawings were filed with the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the claim in lines 1-3 recites “A process performed by a computer ..., the method comprising:” which should be corrected and read as “A method performed by a computer..., the method comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the claim in step (a) recites “making it an infinite number of possibilities...” which should be corrected and read as “making [[it]] the encryption an infinite number of possibilities ...”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the claim in step (a) recites “...the original code...” which is not recited previously and therefore lacks antecedent basis. The limitations “the original code” should be corrected and read as “[[the]] an original code”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the claim in step (b) recites “...to read those encryptions...” which should be corrected and read as “... to read [[those]] the encryptions...”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the claim in step (c) recites “...sharing encryptions...” which should be corrected and read as “... sharing the encryptions...”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the claim in step (d) recites “securing encryptions with additional encryption...” which should be corrected and read as “securing the encryptions with an additional encryption...”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the claim in step (e) recites “securing encryptions with encryption ...” which should be corrected and read as “securing the encryptions with the additional encryption...”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the claim in step (e) recites “...transport over networks for use on other devices;” which should be corrected and read as “... transport over the networks for use on the other devices”, since the claim previously in step C recites “... shared over networks and with other devices;”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the claim in step (f) recites “...the device...” which is not recited previously and therefore lacks antecedent basis. The limitations “the device” should be corrected and read as “[[the]] a device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the claim in step (f) recites “other devices” which should be corrected and read as “the other devices”, since the claim previously in step (c) and (e) already recites “other devices”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the claim in step (g) recites “recognizing accessory code not encrypted to the platform’s translation readability systems...” which is not recited previously and therefore lacks antecedent basis. The limitations “the platform’s translation readability systems” should be corrected and read as “recognizing accessory code not encrypted to of a platform”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the claim in step (g) recites “recognizing accessory code ..., isolating the code, and eliminating the code;” which should be corrected and read as “recognizing accessory code ..., isolating the accessory code, and eliminating the accessory code;”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the claim in step (i) recites “... within software...” which should be corrected and read as “... within the software...” since the claim previously in step (h) already recites “a software”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the claim in step (j) recites “readability of software...” which should be corrected and read as “providing readability of the software...” since the claim previously in step (h) already recites “a software”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the claim in step (l) recites “sending data and denying data to be sent automatically and on a case-by-case basis using data sharing and a data report with option boxes for requested information and data;” which should be corrected and read as “sending data, and denying data to be sent automatically, [[and]] on a case-by-case basis using the data sharing and [[a]] the data report with the option boxes for the requested information and data; ” since the claim previously in step (k) already recites “requesting & receiving data automatically with pre-set parameters or manually using data sharing and a data report with option boxes for information and data;”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the claim in step (m) recites “... using a data report with option boxes for requested information and data.” which should be corrected and read as “... using [[a]] the data report with the option boxes for the requested information and data.” since the claim previously in step (k) already recites “... using data sharing and a data report with option boxes for information and data;”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “... sharing data with your devices and networks...” which should be corrected and read as “... sharing the data with [[your]] devices and the networks”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “..., and software...” which should be corrected and read as “..., and the software...”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “the encryption platform” which is not recited previously and therefore lacks antecedent basis. The limitations “the encryption platform” should be corrected and read as “[[the]] an encryption platform”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “... over networks...” which should be corrected and read as “... over the networks”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “by the developer of the program” which is not recited previously and therefore lacks antecedent basis. The limitations “by the developer of the program” should be corrected and read as “by [[the]] developer of [[the]] a program”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites acronym “The OS” which is not recited previously, without previously defining what this acronym stands for, and therefore lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites limitation “The access-points” which is not recited previously, and therefore lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites limitation “the core” which is not recited previously, and therefore lacks antecedent basis. The limitation should be corrected and read as “[[the]] a core”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites limitation “the gateway” which is not recited previously, and therefore lacks antecedent basis. The limitation should be corrected and read as “[[the]] a gateway”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites limitation “the program” which is not recited previously, and therefore lacks antecedent basis. The limitation should be corrected and read as “[[the]] a program”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites limitation “over networks” which is not recited previously, and therefore lacks antecedent basis. The limitation should be corrected and read as “over the networks”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites limitation “the gateway” which is not recited previously, and therefore lacks antecedent basis. The limitation should be corrected and read as “[[the]] a gateway”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites limitation “the encryption platform” which is not recited previously, and therefore lacks antecedent basis. The limitation should be corrected and read as “[[the]] an encryption platform”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites limitation “use of software or data” which should be corrected and read as use of the software or the data”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites limitation “by the developer” which is not recited previously, and therefore lacks antecedent basis. The limitation should be corrected and read as “by [[the]] a developer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites limitation “the encryption platform account” which is not recited previously, and therefore lacks antecedent basis. The limitation should be corrected and read as “[[the]] an encryption platform account”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 8, 9 and 10, the claims recite limitation “the encryption platform” which is not recited previously, and therefore lacks antecedent basis. The limitation should be corrected and read as “[[the]] an encryption platform”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites limitation “the diagnosis system” which is not recited previously, and therefore lacks antecedent basis. The limitation should be corrected and read as “[[the]] a diagnosis system”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites limitation “the core” which is not recited previously, and therefore lacks antecedent basis. The limitation should be corrected and read as “[[the]] a core”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 2, 4-7, 10, 12, 14-17 and 20, examiner notes that the claims use improper internal punctuation, such as a Period (.) instead of a Semicolon (;) and/or a Comma (,) that are primarily used to separate different elements or steps within the claims. Examiner respectfully suggests the applicant to rewrite claims by using proper punctuation that is crucial to ensure the claims are interpreted correctly during prosecution and potential litigation, and not found to be indefinite.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is objected for the same reasons as mentioned above for the independent claim 1. Claim 11, however, in lines 1-5 also recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising multiple computer programs in an encryption platform, the platform itself encrypted, that when executed by a computer system enables the encryption platform to perform the following process for allowing authorized access while denying access of digital systems to a breach by malware, viruses, and hacking from multiple sources, the method comprising:” which should be corrected and read as “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising multiple computer programs in an encryption platform, the encryption platform [[itself]] is encrypted, that when executed by a computer system enables the encryption platform to perform a method for allowing authorized access while denying access of digital systems to a breach by malware, viruses, and hacking from multiple sources, the method comprising:”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 12-20, the claims recite similar subject matter as recited in claims 2-10. Therefore, claims 12-20 are objected for the same reasons as mentioned above for the claims 2-10, respectively. Claims 12-20, however, in line 1 also recites “The method of claim 11, ...” which should be corrected and read as “The non-transitory computer-readable medium [[method]] of claim 11, ...” Since independent claim 11, on which claims 12-20 depends-on, is directed towards “A non-transitory computer-readable medium”. Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner respectfully suggests the applicant to rewrite claims 1-20 in a clear and
concise manner to overcome informalities.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “(b) a system of recording, naming, and tracking all encryptions in a ledger...” and “(c) means of sharing encryptions ... over networks and with other devices;” in claims 11-20.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding independent claim 11, the claims recite limitation(s), such as “(b) a system of recording, naming, and tracking all encryptions in a ledger...”, and “(c) means of sharing encryptions ... over networks and with other devices;”, which is not clearly described in the specification. The specification as filed must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. An original claim may lack written description when the claim defines the invention in specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention is to be performed or result achieved. In the instant case, examiner notes that the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is absent adequate structure to perform the claimed function, especially the claimed function of “a system of recording, naming, and tracking all encryptions ...”, and “means of sharing encryptions ...”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, of “a system” that performs recording, naming, and tracking all encryptions, and of “means” for sharing encryptions. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which collects structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function.
Thus, the claim lacks written description when the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently support and describe the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as to how the function is performed or the result is achieved. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Dependent claims 12-20 are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, since they depend on and/or carries the deficiencies of the parent claims.
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.
Regarding independent claim 11, the claim recites limitations “(b) a system of recording, naming, and tracking all encryptions in a ledger...” and “(c) means of sharing encryptions ... over networks and with other devices;” that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is absent adequate structure to perform the claimed function, especially the claimed function of “a system of recording, naming, and tracking all encryptions ...”, and “means of sharing encryptions ...”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, of “a system” that performs recording, naming, and tracking all encryptions, and of “means” for sharing encryptions. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which collects structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 11, the claims in step (l) recite limitation “sending data and denying data to be sent automatically and on a case-by-case basis using data sharing and a data report with option boxes for requested information and data;” which is indefinite because there is more than one reasonable interpretation of what intended embodiments are included in the claims. The claim limitation could be interpreted in such a way that it is not clear which is covered hence ambiguous and indefinite. Thus, the claims are indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. Therefore, clarification is required.
For examination purpose, the examiner interprets this limitation as “sending data on a case-by-case basis using data sharing and a data report with option boxes for the requested information and data, and denying data to be sent automatically;”.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 11, the claims in step (m) recite limitation “viewing all data requests meant to be unseen but imbedded in the code of a software program using a data report with option boxes for requested information and data” which is indefinite because there is more than one reasonable interpretation of what intended embodiments are included in the claims. The claim limitation could be interpreted in such a way that it is not clear which is covered hence ambiguous and indefinite. Thus, the claims are indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. Therefore, clarification is required.
For examination purpose, the examiner interprets this limitation as “viewing all data requests, meant to be unseen but imbedded in the code of a software program, using a data report with option boxes for the requested information and data”.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the claims recite limitation “use of software by a private organization (e.g. business, non-profit, or government agency)” within parentheses (). It is unclear whether the limitation as recited within parentheses () is part of the claimed subject matter or not? Clarification is required.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the claims recite limitation “wherein non-visual computer systems and devices (e.g. modems, satellites)” within parentheses (). It is unclear whether the limitation as recited within parentheses () is part of the claimed subject matter or not? Clarification is required.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the claims recite limitation “the use of visual computer devices (e.g. desktops and laptops)” within parentheses (). It is unclear whether the limitation as recited within parentheses () is part of the claimed subject matter or not? Clarification is required.
Remaining dependent claims are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph as being indefinite since they depend on and/or carries the deficiencies of the parent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable only if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim
objections and claim rejections as set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject
matter in view of the cited references. Such as,
with regards to independent claims 1 and 11, the claims recite subject
matter “an encryption made by a translation matrix utilizing multiple random translation types per one encryption, making it an infinite number of possibilities what the original code was before the encryption occurred; a system of recording, naming, and tracking all encryptions in a ledger for use to read those encryptions without revealing the encryptions, encryption types, or decryption legend; securing encryptions with additional encryption for on-device and off-device records; creating variable lock and key entry encryptions accessible only to specific authorized encrypted code on the device, other devices, and individual authorities of identified software programs; recognizing accessory code not encrypted to the platform’s translation readability systems, isolating the code, and eliminating the code; readability of software without decrypting the encryptions using an imbedded legend; and viewing all data requests meant to be unseen but imbedded in the code of a software program using a data report with option boxes for requested information and data. ” which is not disclosed in the closest cited prior art of record, in such that, the closest cited prior art,
WANG, Fu-kun (CN 116484375 A) suggests a method for shelling a malicious program, and the method comprises: obtaining the encryption type of the malicious code added with shell; aiming at different encryption types, identifying the storage attribute of the decrypted malicious code in the memory by monitoring the corresponding system function; The decrypted malicious code is transferred to a target storage unit based at least on the storage attribute.
Ortner (US 10791097 B2) suggests detection techniques, such as streaming file management, may provide the capability of checking files received at the network, gateway facility, client facility, and the like. This may provide the capability of not allowing a streaming file or portions of the streaming file containing malicious code from entering the client facility, gateway facility, or network. In an embodiment, the streaming file may be broken into blocks of information, and a plurality of virus identities may be used to check each of the blocks of information for malicious code. In an embodiment, any blocks that are not determined to be clear of malicious code may not be delivered to the client facility, gateway facility, or network.
Roger Neal (GB 2551983 A) suggests that the security management facility 122 may be a software application that may provide malicious code and malicious application protection to a client facility computing resource. The security management facility 122 may have the ability to scan the client facility files for malicious code, remove or quarantine certain applications and files, prevent certain actions, perform remedial actions and perform other security measures. In embodiments, scanning the client facility may include scanning some or all of the files stored to the client facility on a periodic basis, scanning an application when the application is executed, scanning files as the files are transmitted to or from the client facility, or the like. The scanning of the applications and files may be performed to detect known malicious code or known unwanted applications.
Nakamura, Takatoshi (WO 2019009275 A2) suggests a sharing process in which all of the plurality of communication devices share the target data encrypted by all the encryption units of the plurality of communication devices by transmitting and receiving via the network.
Witter et al. (US 20030208497 A1) suggests an enclosure reorder screen 342 that displays to an operator 78 or other party reorder quantities in a report format. System 10 is also configured to permit operators 78 or other parties 86, 88 (referred to collectively as "users") to request reports based on information stored in database 96. By activating the reports/data link 342 of navigation director 53 and clicking on an issue-ad hoc link (not shown) presented upon activation of reports/data link 342, a user is presented with report screen 344 as shown in FIG. 15. Report screen 344 includes a delivery options box 346 and a data criteria box 348. The user may interface with delivery options box 346 to specify how and to whom the report should be delivered. The various fields of data criteria box 348 permit the user to specify the date range of the report, the type of data to be included in the report, the organization of the data, and other various report criteria according to established database query principles. Report screen 344 further includes a submit request button (not shown). When the user has specified the report content and delivery options, the user may activate the submit request button which causes report routine 94 to generate a report request. Report routine 94 may process the report request by generating, for example, an e-mail containing the report information. The e-mail may be sent via network 14 to the user according to well-established principles. Alternatively, the report may be posted to website 84 at a secure location which is only accessible by the user using conventional ID and password access methods.
However, none of the closest cited prior art teaches or suggests, either taken alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious, all of the claimed features presented in each of the independent claims, in particular, claimed subject matter “an encryption made by a translation matrix utilizing multiple random translation types per one encryption, making it an infinite number of possibilities what the original code was before the encryption occurred; a system of recording, naming, and tracking all encryptions in a ledger for use to read those encryptions without revealing the encryptions, encryption types, or decryption legend; securing encryptions with additional encryption for on-device and off-device records; creating variable lock and key entry encryptions accessible only to specific authorized encrypted code on the device, other devices, and individual authorities of identified software programs; recognizing accessory code not encrypted to the platform’s translation readability systems, isolating the code, and eliminating the code; readability of software without decrypting the encryptions using an imbedded legend; and viewing all data requests meant to be unseen but imbedded in the code of a software program using a data report with option boxes for requested information and data.” as recited in the amended independent claims 1 and 11.
For these reasons, the independent claims along with their dependent claims would be allowable only if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objections and claim rejections as set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI CHEEMA, whose contact number is 571-272-1239 and email: ali.cheema@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 8:00AM – 4:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eleni A. Shiferaw can be reached on 571-272-3867. 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.
/ALI H. CHEEMA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497