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
The present office action is responsive to communications received on 05/10/2024.
Status of Claims
Claims 11 and 15 were canceled.
Claims 1-10 and 12-14 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/10/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With respect to the independent claims:
When reciting “area-by-area” it is not clear that it is of a group of blocks, so in line 6 for example, further clarification would be needed to clarify “each area of a group of blocks having a predetermined length”.
The independent claims recite "the last area" there is no prior mention of a last area, therefore presenting an antecedence matter and also it is not clear what the last area is relative to.
The claims recite "the set of random numbers generated in each area" while in claim 1, for example, in line 8 recites "for each area". So, clarification is needed is it “in each area” or “for each area”.
Claim 4 and similar Claim 13:
The term “betta (β)” in the limitation “each of (betta) areas” is not defined, however it is disclosed as “Note that betta is the number of areas.” (Specification ¶59). Examiner NOTE: because betta is the number of areas, it is unclear how it can be each of total areas, because there is a single set of total areas equal betta.
The term “omega (Ѡ)” is claimed as indicating a predetermined security level, as number of tags, and as a size of a matrix, so it is unclear what is the claimed meaning of omega. See also Claim 5, where it is claimed as a number of “message authentication codes”.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of copending Application No. 18/558,417 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are anticipated by the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mantin (US-20140198912-A1) ¶77 “the present invention the round function of function e includes one of the round key generation algorithm of the second block cipher encryption function, and a tweaked block cipher round function.”
Minematsu (US-20110211691-A1) claim 17 summarizes “a first encryption processing unit that outputs a third block encrypted by means of n-bit block tweakable block cipher using tweak, receiving said first block as input; a second encryption processing unit that generates a random number block of (s-n) bit with a result of group computation of said third block and said first block as input by using an arbitrary cipher having theoretical security at least against a known-plaintext attack; and a second hash unit that applies the locked key permutation to the result of the group computation of said random number block and said second block, and to said third block to output a fifth block of n bit and a sixth block of (s-n) bit; wherein said fifth and sixth blocks are concatenated to output an s-bit encryption.”
Boue et al. (US 11689353 B2) Abstract summarizes “A block cipher encryption device for encrypting a data unit plaintext into blocks of ciphertexts, the data unit plaintext being assigned a tweak value and being divided into one or more plaintext blocks. The block cipher encryption device comprises: a combinatorial function unit associated with each plaintext block, the combinatorial function unit being configured to determine a tweak block value by applying a combinatorial function between a value derived from the tweak value and a function of a block index assigned to the plaintext block, a first masking unit in association with each plaintext block, the first masking unit being configured to determine a masked value by applying a data masking algorithm to the tweak block value determined by the combinatorial function unit associated with the plaintext block.”.
Yusuke Naito, Yu Sasaki, and Takeshi Sugawara "Lightweight Authenticated Encryption Mode Suitable for Threshold Implementation" 15 May 2020 (Year: 2020) Abstract teaches “This paper proposes tweakable block cipher (TBC) based modes PFB_Plus and PFBѠ that are efficient in threshold implementations (TI). Let t be an algebraic degree of a target function, e.g. t = 1 (resp. t > 1) for linear (resp. non-linear) function. The d-th order TI encodes the internal state into dt + 1 shares. Hence, the area size increases proportionally to the number of shares.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANY S GADALLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2322. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, Carl Colin can be reached on (571) 272-3862. 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.
/HANY S. GADALLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493