DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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
The preliminary amendment filed 2025-03-03 has been entered and fully considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2025-03-03 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(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.
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), because the claim limitations use 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 limitations are: a “system for controlling”, “a first set of one or more processing units”, “a second set of one or more processing units”, and “a third set of one or more processing units” configured for carrying out steps as recited in a “system for controlling anonymous and distributed access to remote resources or services comprising a first set of one or more processing units acting as distributors, a second set of one or more processing units acting as guards, and a third set of one or more processing units acting as users, configured for” in claim 6.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification is unclear as to the corresponding structure or acts described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitations.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In particular, claim 6 recites the limitation “each of the distributors generating a
q
i
x
function”, and the specification does not describe the claimed feature in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
It is first noted that original claims lack adequate written description when the claims are generically drafted but the written description fails to support the scope of the genus claimed; See MPEP § 2161.01(I). That is, “the specification must demonstrate that the applicant [inventor] has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant [inventor] has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus”. In this instance, the claims generally recite generating a
q
i
x
function. The specification does provide written description for this function in the narrow embodiment that “the distributors agreeing on a prime p value, such that a generated polynomial
q
i
x
is obtained taking into consideration the result of reduced modulo p”; however, the specification does not provide a suitable level of embodiments or species for how to achieve this claim function for any generic application of generating a
q
i
x
function, such as claimed. Thus, the specification does not provide the necessary written description support for the full breadth of the asserted claims as required by the written description requirement.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Specifically claim 1 recites the limitations:
“
q
i
x
”, “
m
i
”, “
q
i
j
x
”, “
p
j
x
”, “
m
i
j
”, “
P
t
u
m
i
”, and “
P
t
u
m
j
”, and the subscripts
i
and
j
are not defined;
[Claim 3 only] “
P
t
u
m
j
s
”, and it seems the correct subscript should be
i
, not
j
, as it seems
i
is in reference to the particular distributor (additionally,
j
is not provided as a subscript when it should be);
“dividing each
q
i
x
function or each
m
i
value into N portions”, and it is unclear how to interpret division when N = 1;
[Claim 2 only] “wherein the distributors agree on a redundancy function f”, distributors implies N > 1 and redundancy cannot exist if N = 1;
“sending to each guard the
P
t
u
and
y
u
values”, this conflicts with “a user sending … , if more than one distributor is taken into consideration, a
P
t
u
value” when only one distributor;
“each guard calculating the result for
P
t
u
of the function
p
j
x
”, and this function is not defined when there is only one distributor, as
P
t
u
is only sent by a user “if there is more than one distributor”, but the claim also encompasses just a single distributor; and
“a user sending … a
P
t
u
value”, and the claim does not define this value, whereas the specification makes clear the user “privately selects” the value “to avoid attacks based on the homomorphic properties of the modular product” and that the user is to select “
P
t
u
… such that
p
>
P
t
u
” (p. 11, ll. 3-7; and p. 12, l. 32 – p. 13, l. 3); thus the claim is missing essential subject matter; See MPEP § 2172.01.
Claim 6 is rejected under a similar rationale. The dependent claims included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Specifically, with regard to claim 6, claim elements a “system for controlling”, “a first set of one or more processing units”, “a second set of one or more processing units”, and “a third set of one or more processing units” are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function(s) and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function(s). In particular, the Specification does not explicitly disclose what structure performs the claimed function(s).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitations will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed functions, 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 functions 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 functions so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed functions, 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 functions and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed functions, 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 functions. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wright et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication No. 20180367298-A1, hereinafter “Wright”).
With respect to independent claim 1, Wright discloses a computer-assisted method for controlling anonymous and distributed access to remote resources or services which uses one or more distributors, and N guards responsible for controlling access to the resource or service, wherein N is greater than or equal to 1, and wherein the method comprises the steps of:
the distributors agreeing on a prime p value, such that a generated polynomial
q
i
x
is obtained taking into consideration the result of reduced modulo p {para. 0096: “Given a secret S, a number of participants n, a threshold number k, and some prime number p, we construct a polynomial: y=f(x) of degree k−1 (modulo our prime p)”}.
each of the distributors generating a
q
i
x
function or a
m
i
value {para. 0096: “Given a secret S, a number of participants n, a threshold number k, and some prime number p, we construct a polynomial: y=f(x) of degree k−1 (modulo our prime p)”}.
dividing each
q
i
x
function or each
m
i
value into N portions, such that the
q
i
x
function is a linear combination of the
q
i
j
x
portions or the
m
i
value is equal to the sum total of the N portions
m
i
j
{note that dividing in a case of N = 1 (no division occurs) suggests the division is optional and thus the limitation does not limit the scope of the claim; See MPEP § 2103(I)(C)}.
each distributor sending a portion of the
q
i
j
x
function or its
m
i
j
value to each guard {note that dividing in a case of N = 1 (no division occurs) suggests the division is optional,
q
i
j
x
is not created to be sent; and thus the limitation does not limit the scope of the claim; See MPEP § 2103(I)(C)}.
if there is more than one distributor, each guard calculating a respective
p
j
x
function equal to the sum total of the functions received from each distributor or
n
j
value of the guard equal to the sum total of the values received from each distributor {the limitation is not required by the prior art, as there may be only one distributor and the “broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”; See MPEP § 2111.04(II)}.
a user sending to the one or more distributors an identifier {para. 0075: “splitting the secret up into unique parts or shares which are then distributed to different parties”} and, if more than one distributor is taken into consideration, a
P
t
u
value {the limitation is not required by the prior art, as the “broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”; See MPEP § 2111.04(II)}.
one or more distributors calculating and sending to the user the result of the generated
q
i
x
function for
P
t
u
or the
P
t
u
m
i
value if the identification is positive {the limitation is not required by the prior art, as the “broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”; See MPEP § 2111.04(II)}.
if there is more than one distributor, the user calculating a
y
u
value equal to the reduction modulo p of the sum total of the results of the generated
q
i
x
function of each distributor for
P
t
u
or of the product total of the results of the
P
t
u
m
i
value of each distributor {the limitation is not required by the prior art, as the “broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”; See MPEP § 2111.04(II)}.
sending to each guard the
P
t
u
and
y
u
values {the limitation is not required by the prior art, as the “broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”; See MPEP § 2111.04(II); note the values
P
t
u
and
y
u
are only constructed “if more than one distributor is taken into consideration” and “if there is more than one distributor”}.
each guard calculating the result for
P
t
u
of the function
p
j
x
of the guard or the result of
P
t
u
m
j
modulo p using the
n
j
value {the limitation is not required by the prior art, as the “broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”; See MPEP § 2111.04(II); note the values
P
t
u
and
y
u
are only constructed and sent to the guards for calculating the results “if more than one distributor is taken into consideration” and “if there is more than one distributor”}.
verifying that
y
u
is equal to the reduction modulo p of the sum of the result of all own
p
j
x
functions or the product total of the
P
t
u
m
j
values using own
n
j
values {the limitation is not required by the prior art, as the “broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”; See MPEP § 2111.04(II); note the values
P
t
u
and
y
u
are only constructed and sent to the guards for verifying “if more than one distributor is taken into consideration” and “if there is more than one distributor”}.
giving access to a resource if the verification is positive {the limitation is not required by the prior art, as the “broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”; See MPEP § 2111.04(II)}.
With respect to dependent claim 2, Wright discloses wherein the distributors agree on a redundancy function f and the user randomly generates a value r, such that
P
t
u
is calculated as the concatenation of r and f(r) {the limitation is not required by the prior art, as the “broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”; See MPEP § 2111.04(II); that is, if there is only one distributor, the plural does not occur and there is no “redundancy”}.
With respect to dependent claim 3, Wright discloses wherein, if there is more than one distributor, the user generates two values s and v, such that the product s*v reduction modulo (p-1) is equal to 1; and wherein the value that is sent to the one or more distributors along with the identifier is
P
'
t
u
=
P
t
u
v
modulo p and
y
u
is equal to the product total of the
P
t
u
m
j
s
values {the limitation is not required by the prior art, as the “broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”; See MPEP § 2111.04(II)}.
With respect to dependent claim 4, Wright discloses wherein in the step of the one or more distributors calculating and sending to the user the result of the generated
q
i
x
function for
P
t
u
or of the
P
t
u
m
i
value, previously checking if there is a previous issuance of credentials to said user {the limitation is not required by the prior art, as the “broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”; See MPEP § 2111.04(II)}.
With respect to dependent claim 5, Wright discloses wherein the user specifies an action to be performed on a resource to the guards, which perform said action or give access to the user to perform the action if the verification step is positive and provide the user with guarantee that the action has been performed {the limitation is not required by the prior art, as the “broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”; See MPEP § 2111.04(II)}.
With respect to claim 6, the contingent limitations are required since it is a system claim (See MPEP § 2111.04(II)) and these limitations are not taught by Wright; however, the claim is not allowable due to the numerous deficiencies under § 112(a) & (b) as noted supra.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Bechtel whose telephone number is 571-270