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 02/20/2026 to a Requirement for Election/Restriction mailed on 12/23/2025 for Application #18/674,380 filed on 05/24/2024 in which Claims 1-15 are pending, Claims 7-10 are withdrawn from current consideration due to a restriction election as non-elected claims.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6, 11-15 are now pending, of which Claims 1-6, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102.
Applicant’s Most Recent Claim Set of 05/24/2024
Applicant’s most recent claim set of 05/24/2024 is considered to be the latest claim set under consideration by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 11, this claim is objected to for lack of antecedent basis. This claim recites the limitation “the first peer” in Line(s) 4. This “the first peer” is not defined in Claim 11, or any potential parent claims to Claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11-15 is/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 Claim 1, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01.
The phrase “such that the ciphertext encrypts a first parameter” in Lines(s) 4-5 of Claim 1, is apparently stating that an inert block or segment of data, a ciphertext, is executing an encryption algorithm on a parameter, since this makes no sense whatsoever in the real world, the examiner assumes that important elements of the claim are missing, and under the circumstances cannot even guess as to applicant’s true intent so as to attempt to construe the actual meaning of this phrase “such that the ciphertext encrypts a first parameter” in the claim.
Regarding Claim 1, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01.
The phrase “sending the ciphertext and encrypted ciphertext signature to allow the second peer to generate the session key” in Lines(s) 10-11 of Claim 1, is apparently stating that the second peer is sending or transmitting a ciphertext and encrypted ciphertext signature to itself, in order to allow or enable itself to generate a session key, since this makes no sense whatsoever in the real world, the examiner assumes that important elements of the claim are missing, and under the circumstances cannot even guess as to applicant’s true intent so as to attempt to construe the actual meaning of this phrase “sending the ciphertext and encrypted ciphertext signature to allow a second peer to generate the session key” in the claim.
Regarding Claim 11, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01.
The phrase “such that the ciphertext encrypts a first parameter” in Lines(s) 5-6 of Claim 11, is apparently stating that an inert block or segment of data, a ciphertext, is executing an encryption algorithm on a parameter, since this makes no sense whatsoever in the real world, the examiner assumes that important elements of the claim are missing, and under the circumstances cannot even guess as to applicant’s true intent so as to attempt to construe the actual meaning of this phrase “such that the ciphertext encrypts a first parameter” in the claim.
Regarding Claim 11, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01.
The phrase “sending the ciphertext and encrypted ciphertext signature to allow the second peer to generate the session key” in Lines(s) 11-12 of Claim 11, is apparently stating that a second peer is sending or transmitting a ciphertext and encrypted ciphertext signature to itself, in order to allow or enable itself to generate a session key, since this makes no sense whatsoever in the real world, the examiner assumes that important elements of the claim are missing, and under the circumstances cannot even guess as to applicant’s true intent so as to attempt to construe the actual meaning of this phrase “sending the ciphertext and encrypted ciphertext signature to allow the second peer to generate the session key” in the claim.
Regarding Claim(s) 2-6, 12-15, they/it are/is (a) dependent claim(s) dependent on Claim(s) 1, 11 which have/has inherited the deficiencies of the parent claim and have/has not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they/it are/is rejected based on the same rationale as applied to the parent Claim(s) 1, 11 above.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ABDALLA et al US Patent Application Publication #2018/0295114.
Regarding Claim 1, ABDALLA et al discloses:
A method of generating a session key for exchange of data between a first peer and a second peer, the method comprising the second peer (Special Note: Applicant redefines the descriptor “peer” in the Specification at Paragraph 11 to “refer to an entity that performs steps to generate a session key”, so in this application, the descriptor “peer” does not have its normal limited industry standard meaning of each of two devices that directly negotiate communications between themselves without the aid of a server or additional device from that of the two devices that are directly communicating, which is commonly described in industry as “Peer-to-Peer” communications. As a result, any prior art needed to reject the claim limitations over prior art has no requirements to be even remotely related to traditional “Peer-to-Peer” communications, it is OK it if does, it just is not required and is definitely not a claim limitation) [(ABDALLA et al Par 52 Lines 1-7; Fig 1, 2A, 2B, 2C) where ABDALLA et al teaches a method of generating a session key for secure exchange of messages or data between two peers or entities]:
obtaining an ephemeral key from the first peer; [(ABDALLA et al Par 49 Lines 1-7; Fig 1, 2A, 2B, 2C) where ABDALLA et al teaches that device B the responder obtains or receives an ephemeral public key from Device A the initiator via a canonical 2-party key exchange protocol]
using the ephemeral key to compute a ciphertext [(ABDALLA et al Par 52 Lines 1-7; Fig 1, 2A, 2B, 2C) where ABDALLA et al teaches that device B the responder utilizes the ephemeral public key received from Device A the initiator and re-generated via the canonical 2-party key exchange protocol to compute a corresponding session key or ciphertext], such that the ciphertext encrypts a first parameter (See 112(b) rejection above, for an explanation of these Lines(s) 4-5 of Claim 1, and why they are impossible to construe and reject);
signing the ciphertext to generate a ciphertext signature; using an encryption mechanism to encrypt the ciphertext signature to generate an encrypted ciphertext signature [(ABDALLA et al Par 52 Lines 1-7; Fig 1, 2A, 2B, 2C) where ABDALLA et al teaches that device B the responder encrypts the re-generated computed session key’s or ciphertext’s attribute values and signature, which also indicates that device B the responder had to sign the re-generated computed session key first in order to even have a signature of it to encrypt)];
generating a session key using the first parameter [(ABDALLA et al Par 52 Lines 1-7; Fig 1, 2A, 2B, 2C) where ABDALLA et al teaches that device B the responder utilizes a first parameter of the ephemeral public key received from Device A the initiator and re-generated via the canonical 2-party key exchange protocol to generate or compute a corresponding session key or ciphertext]; and
sending the ciphertext and encrypted ciphertext signature to allow the second peer to generate the session key (See 112(b) rejection above, for an explanation of these Lines(s) 10-11 of Claim 1, and why they are impossible to construe and reject).
Regarding Claim 2, ABDALLA et al discloses:
A method according to claim 1, wherein using the ephemeral key to compute a ciphertext comprises applying a key encapsulation mechanism to generate the ciphertext [(ABDALLA et al Par 49 Lines 1-7; Par 52 Lines 1-7; Fig 1, 2A, 2B, 2C) where ABDALLA et al teaches that the session key is wrapped or encapsulated utilizing the ephemeral public key to generate a ciphertext for transmission].
Regarding Claim 3, ABDALLA et al discloses:
A method according to claim 2, wherein the key encapsulation mechanism is based on one of a lattice-based key encapsulation mechanism, a code-based key encapsulation mechanism, a multivariate-based key encapsulation mechanism, and an isogeny-based key encapsulation mechanism [(ABDALLA et al Par 49 Lines 1-7; Par 52 Lines 1-7; Fig 1, 2A, 2B, 2C) where ABDALLA et al teaches that the session key is wrapped or encapsulated utilizing the ephemeral public key in a code-based key encapsulation mechanism to generate a ciphertext for transmission].
Regarding Claim 4, ABDALLA et al discloses:
A method according to claim 1, wherein the ephemeral key is a receiver- oblivious ephemeral key [(ABDALLA et al Par 49 Lines 1-7; Par 52 Lines 1-7; Fig 1, 2A, 2B, 2C) where ABDALLA et al teaches that an ephemeral key received by a responder is a receiver oblivious ephemeral key since the responder had no knowledge and was oblivious of the transmitted ephemeral key before receiving an encrypted version of it].
Regarding Claim 5, ABDALLA et al discloses:
A method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining an ephemeral key comprises retrieving the ephemeral key from a server [(ABDALLA et al Par 49 Lines 1-7; Par 52 Lines 1-7; Fig 1, 2A, 2B, 2C) where ABDALLA et al teaches that device B, the responder, a server device, sends or transmits the ephemeral public key to device A the initiator, which indicates that device A retrieves the ephemeral public key from device B, the server].
Regarding Claim 6, ABDALLA et al discloses:
A method according to claim 1, wherein using an encryption mechanism to encrypt the ciphertext signature comprises applying a public key encryption mechanism to the ciphertext signature. [(ABDALLA et al Par 49 Lines 1-7; Par 52 Lines 1-7; Fig 1, 2A, 2B, 2C) where ABDALLA et al teaches that the session key is wrapped or encapsulated utilizing the ephemeral public key in encrypting the resulting ciphertext’s attributes and signature].
Regarding Claim 11:
It is a medium 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 a medium 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 13:
It is a medium claim corresponding to the method claim of claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 14:
It is a medium 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 a medium claim corresponding to the method claim of claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against claim 5 above.
Response to Restriction Transversal
It is appreciated by the examiner that applicant provided an election of an invention to the examiner, even though applicant decided to traverse the restriction election. Each of the previous 2 Groups are described by Applicant as different embodiments in the specification. That is why the examiner is also describing them as different embodiments. A patent application, by statute, is one invention per patent application, one potential patent per patent application. By applicant having Independent Claims for different inventions in the same patent application, in this case two different Invention Independent Method Claims, applicant is attempting to obtain two patents while only filing one patent application.
If the two different method claims are the same invention, they why are they claimed differently? Why aren’t they listed in the same independent method claim if they are the same invention. Applicant could of course combined them in the same method claim, which would have been fine, because then they would be the same invention, which also would have brought the invention much closer to allowance, but claiming bits and pieces bit meal adds extra work for the examiner that we no longer have the luxury of the time to deal with, we are now living with different realities post DOGE, our work load post DOGE has increased roughly 50% with no extra time provided to take care of it. I realize that many examiners, especially Junior Examiners, used to let it go, but that just caused bad habits on the part of Applicant, one patent, one invention, is the true name of the game. If Applicant should choose to combine the two different Independent Method Claims into one Independent Method Claim in an amendment, then the examiner will process that accordingly and with full consideration, and so doing will move the application closer to allowance.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the transversal of the Restriction Election Requirement are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Collinge et al - US_20180025353: Collinge et al teaches key management of encrypted mobile to mobile device communications and encrypted mobile device to server communications.
Furukawa - US_20170187524: Furukawa teaches management of encrypted device to device communications based on the use of signatures for verification.
Lauter et al - US_20070043946: Lauter et al teaches authenticated key exchange between devices utilizing derived ephemeral keys.
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