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 .
Claim Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18, lines 1-2, “the block size”, should read, “a block size”.
Claim 18, lines 3-4, “the two requirements”, should read, “two requirements”.
Claim 19, line 7, “the same length”, should read, “a same length”.
Claim 20, line 2, “the hash value”, should read, “a hash value”.
Claim 23, line 11, “the message”, should read, “the ciphertext message”.
Claim 27, line 2, “the padding of the blocks”, should read, “a padding of blocks”.
Claim 27, line 3, “the CTS operation mode”, should read, “a CTS operation mode”.
Claim 28, line 2, “the message”, should read “the ciphertext message”.
Claim 29, line 14, “Egen”, should read, “general cipher Egen”.
Claim 29, line 15, “the first u bits”, should read, “a first u bits”.
Claim 30, line 3, “the maximum possible”, should read, “a maximum possible”.
Claim 30, line 5, “the message”, should read, “a ciphertext message”.
Claim 30, line 5, “the receiver”, should read, “a receiver”.
Claim 31, line 2, “a function ScrambleU”, should read, “the function ScrambleU”.
Claim 32, line 1, “a block cipher E”, should read, “the block cipher E”.
Claim 32, “the E_Raw encryption”, should read, “an E_Raw encryption”.
Claim 33, line 2, “the selected operation mode”, should read, “a selected operation mode”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 18-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mathematical equations for encrypting a plaintext using a fingerprint function and detail regarding mathematical properties of a fingerprint function and calculations using the fingerprint function. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no other elements present that could be interpreted to integrate the mathematical equations into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no other elements present that could be interpreted to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Correction/Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 29-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention lacks patentable utility. Please note that claims 29 is directed towards a method for encrypting a plaintext PT with a block cipher E of the block size LE using a symmetric key K”, however the body of the claim only recites using a fingerprint function and how it is calculated. Calculating a fingerprint function does not produce useful, concrete and tangible result and it appears to be only an intermediate step. Claims 30-34 also do not appear to recite any limitation that could be seen as producing useful, concrete and tangible result. As a result, claims 29-34 lacks patentable utility that is specific, substantial and credible. See, MPEP 2107.
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 18-34 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.
The term “sufficiently high probability” in claims 18, 19 and 29 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficiently high probability” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims are repeated with mathematical terms without defining them, for example in claim 18, it is not clear what u+1 and L(BF) in the formula BF(u+1...L(BF) symbolizes. Also note that rest of claims and specifically claims 23, 24, 26 and 32 recites many mathematical terms without any explanation.
Claim 18 uses the term “block cipher E” and “general cipher EGen” for encrypting a plaintext. It is not clear if they both are same cipher or different.
Claim 18 recites, “computing a first block of ciphertext CB1 by EGen encryption of the u bit-long result FPu (PBu1∥ FPInput) so that CB1:= EGen(FPu (PBu1∥ FPInput)), and using the generated encryption of the first u bits of the plaintext CB1 is as an initialization vector IV:= CB1. Please note that claim first establishes that the Egen encryption is of the complete first u bits PBu1 and selected or of all bits FPinput of the remaining plaintext. Then recites the generated encryption of the first U bits of the plaintext. However, encryption of the first U bits of the plaintext was not described earlier and it is not clear if this recitation is referring to another encryption of first U bits only or the beforementioned Egen encryption of a concatenation of a complete first u bits PBu1of the plaintext and of selected or of all bits FPInput of the remaining plaintext.
Furthermore, Claim 18 recites, “A method for encrypting a plaintext using a block cipher E of the block size LE using a symmetric key”, however, the claim does not recite any use of a symmetric key and appears to omit essential method step and such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: using the symmetric key during the encryption of plaintext.
Furthermore, Claim 18 recites, “for which purpose any operation mode requiring an initialization vector (IV) is used”. It is not clear in the context of the claim what is meant by this recitation. Is it referring to using IV in any other encryption of another plaintext using IV or in any possible operation that requires IV in which case the scope of the inventions is not clear.
Claim 19 recites, “ScrambleU is an invertible function mapping bit sequences (BF) of length u to bit sequences BF of the length u. It is not clear how bit sequence (BF) of length u is mapped to itself by using ScrambleU.
Regarding claim 23, it is not clear if the encryption process described is further limiting the encryption of claim 18 or is being done on a new plaintext message because claim 23 does not refer to any limitation of claim 18.
Claim 29 recites, “ScrambleU is an invertible function mapping bit sequences (BF) of length u to bit sequences BF of the length u. It is not clear how bit sequence (BF) of length u is mapped to itself by using ScrambleU.
Claims 29-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. Please note that claims 29 is directed towards a method for encrypting a plaintext PT with a block cipher E of the block size LE using a symmetric key K”, however the body of the claim only recites using a fingerprint function and how it is calculated. Calculating a fingerprint function for a massage does not produce useful, concrete and tangible result and it appears to be only an intermediate step. Claims 30-34 also do not appear to recite any limitation that could be seen as producing useful, concrete and tangible result. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: using the claimed fingerprint function for encrypting plaintext with a block cipher of the block size LE using a symmetric key that results in ciphertext.
Claim 29 further recites, “additional encryption of first u bits of the plaintext by Egen is dispensed with and, instead the FPuK_H fingerprint is used directly as the encryption of the first u bits CBU1”. It is not clear what is meant by “addition encryption of the first u bits of the plaintext by Egen is dispensed with”. There is no earlier recitation of any encryption of any bits of plaintext by Egen including the first u bits CBU1.
Claim 32 recites, “wherein for a block cipher E having a block size LE = u and LE bit-long symmetric key K_S, the E_Raw encryption with K_S, so that ERAWK_S is used as the function ScrambleU. It is not clear what is meant by “the E_Raw encryption with K_S, so that ERAWK_S is used as the function ScrambleU”.
Claim 33 recites, “wherein a length of an initialization vector is adapted depending on…”, however there is no earlier mention of initialization vector and it is not clear how this limitation is linked with rest of the claims.
Examiner’s Note: The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical errors and indefinite language. The active steps for a method claim must be clearly and positively specified. The steps must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative method for that would produce useful, concrete and tangible result.
Further note that as evidenced by numerous objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of all claims above, there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of all pending claims. Claims will be interpreted as best understood by examiner in light of the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 18, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kalach et al. (US 2022/0109559 A1), hereinafter, “Kalach”.
Regarding Claim 18, Kalach discloses method for encrypting a plaintext using a block cipher E of the block size LE using a symmetric key K, wherein the method comprises:
using a fingerprint function FPu for encrypting the plain text that satisfies the two requirements that (1) from two different bit sequences BF1 ≠ BF2, it follows with a sufficiently high probability for an intended application that results of the intended application of the fingerprint function FPu to the two bit sequences are also different FPu(BF1) ≠ FPu(BF2), (See, Paragraphs 0005 and 0007) and (2) a fingerprint inverse function FPu-1 exists for the fingerprint function FPu, such that the following always applies
FPu-1 (FPu (BF) || BF[u+1..L(BF)]) = BF[1..u], wherein u and LE need not necessarily be the same (See, Paragraphs 0007, 0062, 0066, 0067 and 0071)
wherein a general cipher EGen is used by applying the fingerprint function FPu to a concatenation of a complete first u bits PBu1 of the plaintext and of selected or of all bits FPlnput of the remaining plaintext, and then computing a first block of ciphertext CB1 by EGen encryption of the u bit-long result FPu (PBu1|| FPlnput) so that CB1:= EGen(FPu (PBu1| FPlnput)) (See, Paragraphs 0007, 0062, 0066, 0067 and 0071), and using the generated encryption of the first u bits of the plaintext CB1 is as an initialization vector IV := CB1 to encrypt parts of or a total remaining plaintext with the block cipher E (See, Paragraphs 0066 and 0067), for which purpose any operation mode requiring an initialization vector (IV) is used (See, Paragraph 0005).
Regarding Claim 24, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated and Kalach further discloses wherein one of fingerprint functions FPUHASH(K_H), ID OR FPHASH(K_H), E-K_S is used as a fingerprint function FPU in the encryption method (See, Paragraphs 0066 and 0067).
Regarding Claim 25, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated and Kalach further discloses wherein an E-Raw encryption of a block cipher E of block size LE = u using a symmetric LK bit-long key K, which is ERAEK, is used as a general cipher Egen in the encryption method (See, Paragraphs 0005 and 0027).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-23 and 26-28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the various objections and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 29-34 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the various objections and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bernsen (US 2021/0266175 A1).
Zeh et al. (US 2019/0356468 A1).
Jaquette et al. (US 11,695,541).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOGESH PALIWAL whose telephone number is (571)270-1807. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571)270-3351. 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.
/YOGESH PALIWAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights