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 amendment filed on 06/29/2026 to Application #18/674,380 filed on 05/24/2024 in which Claims 1-15 are pending, Claims 7-10 are withdrawn from current consideration due to a restriction election as non-elected claims.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 06/29/2026
Applicant’s most recent claim set of 06/29/2026 is considered to be the latest claim set under consideration by the examiner.
Prior Art Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 contains an encryption of a first parameter [(ABDALLA et al Abstract Lines 1-13; Par 49 Lines 1-7; Par 52 Lines 1-7; Fig 1, 2A, 2B, 2C) where ABDALLA et al teaches that the ciphertext that will be transmitted in a message contains or includes multiple encrypted parameters, encrypted attributes and an encrypted signature, since there are multiple encrypted parameters one of them has to be a first one, ABDALLA et al also makes clear in the Abstract that both devices, a first device and a second device can both sent and receive an encrypted cyphertext to each other)];
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 first peer to generate the session key ([(ABDALLA et al Abstract Lines 1-13; Par 49 Lines 1-7; Par 52 Lines 1-7; Par 61 Lines 1-4; Fig 1, 2A, 2B, 2C) where ABDALLA et al teaches that either the first or the second device can be responsible for generating a session].
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/29/2026 have been fully considered but are not fully persuasive.
The Objections to the Claims are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections to the Claims are withdrawn.
On page 6 of applicant’s arguments applicant argues that Abdalla et al does not teach “using the ephemeral key to compute a ciphertext”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. ABDALLA et al clearly 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 [(ABDALLA et al Par 52 Lines 1-7; Fig 1, 2A, 2B, 2C)].
On page 6 of applicant’s arguments applicant argues that Abdalla et al does not teach “signing the ciphertext to generate a ciphertext signature; using an encryption mechanism to encrypt the ciphertext signature to generate an encrypted ciphertext signature”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. ABDALLA et al clearly 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 [(ABDALLA et al Par 52 Lines 1-7; Fig 1, 2A, 2B, 2C)].
Applicant is encouraged to add more invention related detail to the Independent Claims as regards the invention claimed in the Instant Application, in order to move this set of claims to allowance.
On Page 7 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues that since the independent Claims are allowable, the dependent Claims are allowable. The examiner disagrees, because at this time, the independent Claims are not as yet allowable.
As a result, 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections are maintained on Claims 1-6, 11-15.
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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights