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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 3/18/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 13, filed 4/17/2026, with respect to the objection(s) to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The associated objection(s) to the specification has/have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 13, filed 4/17/2026, with respect to the objection(s) to claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, and 17-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The associated objection(s) to the listed claim(s) has/have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 13-18, filed 4/17/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The associated rejection(s) to the listed claim(s) has/have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see page 18, filed 4/17/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The associated rejection(s) to the listed claim(s) has/have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see page 18, filed 4/17/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered.
Examiner notes that no specific arguments have been entered regarding these rejections beyond a statement that the amendments address them.
Regarding claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 16, and 20:
The amendments to the claims sufficiently address the rejections of these claims from the previous office action. The associated rejections of these claims have been withdrawn.
Regarding claim 7:
The amendments do not sufficiently address the rejection of this claim from the previous office action. This rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 18-21, filed 4/17/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-3, 8-10, and 16-18 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument:
“KOBAYASHI teaches as shown in FIG. 4(a), the shift circuit 15 shifts the divided bit string "00010111" four times in the left direction …, thereby encrypting the divided bit string "001" into "01110001". …
“The Examiner asserts that the divided bit string "00010111" of the KOBAYASHI corresponds to the claimed local bits ring. However, KOBAYASHI does not disclose the divided bit string "00010111" is in a ring structure. … Therefore, the most significant bit "0" of the divided bit string "00010111" and a least significant bit "1" of the divided bit string "00010111" are not located adjacent to each other. Moreover, because the divided bit string "00010111" is not in a ring structure, the data bits in the divided bit string "00010111" are not shifted along a first direction or a second direction in the ring structure by a distance.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As to bits arranged in a “ring structure,” Examiner notes that one skilled in the art would understand that a “ring structure” in the context of bit operations is an abstraction used to describe the relationship of the bits, where the least significant bit (LSB) is linked to the most significant bit (MSB) so that no bit values are lost when shifting all bits in either direction by any number of positions. It would be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that no physical “structure” exists within the memory where the bits are stored which correspond to the recited “ring.” Under this understanding, the prior art of KOBAYASHI teaches an identical function, which Applicant has already described as preserving bit values in order through a shift of all bits in either direction.
As to the LSB and MSB being adjacent to each other, Examiner notes that similar to the abstraction of the “ring structure,” one of skill in the art would understand that the LSB and MSB are not actually located physically adjacent to each other. This would require an unknown-in-the-art, particularly manufactured memory architecture which is clearly not being claimed by the Applicant. Rather, the term “adjacent” is used to describe a relationship between the LSB and MSB where the value (‘1’ or ‘0’) of the MSB, for example, when shifted left, is granted to the LSB, which in turn gives its value to the bit to its left. Under this understanding, the prior art of KOBAYASHI teaches an identical function in which, as Applicant has already described, the LSB and MSB are functionally “adjacent,” and is clearly illustrated in the drawings of the prior art.
As to whether the prior art of KOBAYASHI describes bits being “shifted along a first direction or a second direction in the ring structure by a distance”, Examiner notes that the citation provided in the previous office action explicitly teaches this function.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 21-23, filed 4/17/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 4-7, 11-15, 19, and 20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner notes that supplied arguments are essentially assertions of allowability based on previous arguments directed to the rejections under 35 USC 102.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13-16, 18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 16:
The following limitation(s) require(s) correction: “… transforming a data member … from a string structure …”.
Regarding claim(s) 13:
The following limitation(s) require(s) correction: “… determine whether a global amount …”.
Regarding claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, and 20:
They are objected to for being dependent on one or more objected-to claims. These objections could be overcome by overcoming the objections to any claims upon which these claims depend, or by amending the claim such that they are no longer dependent on any objected-to claims.
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.
Claim 7 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 the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7:
The claim describes steps to “decode” the “data members,” but neglects to specify the required direction to shift bit positions to do so. While one of skill in the art may infer that the direction is opposite that in the encoding steps, that it is not explicitly claimed makes the step ambiguous, and thus indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOBAYASHI (Doc ID JP 2001117491 A), and further in view of SHIRAISHI et al (Doc ID US 20230246929 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
KOBAYASHI teaches:
transforming a data member of the original data set form a string structure into a ring structure as a local bits ring, (Page 4 "An encryption processing apparatus … for dividing binary serial data composed of a symbol of 0 or 1 into predetermined bits to generate a divided bit string.") and
a most significant bit of the data member and a least significant bit of the data member are located adjacent to each other in the local bits ring (Fig. 4 illustrates the bit shift operation, including the MSB moving to the LSB, and vice versa.),
determining whether a local amount of specific bits in the local bits ring being odd, wherein the specific bits are 1-bits or 0-bits (Page 4 "… it is determined whether the counted number of symbols is odd or even. If the number is odd, the shift direction is set to a predetermined direction ...");
in response to the local amount of the specific bits in the local bits ring being odd, shifting data bits in the local bits ring along a first direction in the ring structure by a distance, so as to generate a shifted data member (Page 4 "… it is determined whether the counted number of symbols is odd or even. If the number is odd, the shift direction is set to a predetermined direction ...");
in response to the local amount of the specific bits in the local bits ring being even, shifting the data bits in the local bits ring along a second direction different from the first direction in the ring structure by the distance, so as to generate the shifted data member (Page 4 "… if the number of symbols is even, the shift direction is set to a predetermined opposite direction opposite to the predetermined direction ..."); and
SHIRAISHI teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by KOBAYASHI:
A packet encryption method used between a first electronic apparatus and a second electronic apparatus for transmitting an original data set, comprising ([0036] "First, a processing load when encrypted communication is performed between a transmitter 10 and a receiver 20 will be described with reference to FIG. 1." and [0123] "... In FIG. 23, the computer includes a drive device 1000, ... a memory device 1003, a CPU 1004 ..."):
wherein the original data set comprises a data header and a data payload, the data header is excluded from being transformed and shifted, and the data payload comprises the data member ([0074] "… In S12, the encryption processing unit 12 encrypts the message and generates a packet by attaching a header to the encrypted message (payload).");
attaching the data header to the shifted data member to form an encrypted data set ([0074] "… In S12, the encryption processing unit 12 encrypts the message and generates a packet by attaching a header to the encrypted message (payload)."),
wherein the encrypted data set is transmitted from the first electronic apparatus to the second electronic apparatus, and the second electronic apparatus is able to decode the encrypted data set according to the distance to obtain the original data set ("[0074] "… In S13, the decryption processing unit 12 transmits the packet.").
Identifying a data object into a ring structure and performing a circular shift of a set number of positions and in a direction determined by a count of ‘1’ or ‘0’ value bits being odd or even is/are known technique(s) in the art, as demonstrated by KOBAYASHI. Further, encrypting the payload of a data packet, reattaching the header to the packet, and transmitting the packet to another device is/are well-known technique(s) in the art, as demonstrated by SHIRAISHI. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circular bit shift of KOBAYASHI with the packet header and transmission of SHIRAISHI with the motivation to transmit the packet, once its payload has been encoded, to another device which will decode the packet.
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of KOBAYASHI and SHIRAISHI teaches:
The packet encryption method according to claim 1, wherein the distance is determined according to an amount of the specific bits in the local bits ring (KOBAYASHI Page 4 "… the shift amount is further determined based on the number of symbols.").
Regarding claim(s) 8, 10, 16, and 18:
The listed claim(s) is/are rejected with the same justification, mutatis mutandis, as its/their counterpart claim(s) 1 and 3 above.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOBAYASHI (Doc ID JP 2001117491 A) and SHIRAISHI et al (Doc ID US 20230246929 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of NAKAMURA (Doc ID WO 2018181934 A2).
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of KOBAYASHI and SHIRAISHI teaches:
The packet encryption method according to claim 1,
NAKAMURA teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of KOBAYASHI and SHIRAISHI:
wherein the distance is a fixed distance (Page 14 "Another example of the calculation for satisfying the above condition for allowing the transformation ... is a cyclic shift (barrel shift).").
Using a fixed distance for in a circular bit shift is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by NAKAMURA. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circular bit shift of KOBAYASHI and SHIRAISHI with the static shift distance of NAKAMURA with the motivation to provide for a predetermined shift distance for use in the event that it is not practical or possible to use a dynamic shift distance.
Regarding claim 11:
This claim is rejected with the same justification, mutatis mutandis, as its counterpart claim 4 above.
Claims 6, 7, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOBAYASHI (Doc ID JP 2001117491 A) and SHIRAISHI et al (Doc ID US 20230246929 A1) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 16 above, and further in view of SIMON et al (Doc ID US 20240281214 A1).
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of KOBAYASHI and SHIRAISHI teaches:
The packet encryption method according to claim 1,
determining whether a global amount of the specific bits in the global bits ring being odd, wherein the specific bits are 1-bits or 0-bits (KOBAYASHI Page 4 "… it is determined whether the counted number of symbols is odd or even. If the number is odd, the shift direction is set to a predetermined direction ...");
in response to the global amount of the specific bits in the global bits ring being odd, shifting data bits in the global bits ring along the first direction by the distance, so as to generate a shifted global data (KOBAYASHI Page 4 "… it is determined whether the counted number of symbols is odd or even. If the number is odd, the shift direction is set to a predetermined direction ...");
in response to the global amount of the specific bits in the global bits ring being even, shifting the data bits in the global bits ring along the second direction by the distance, so as to generate the shifted global data (KOBAYASHI Page 4 "… if the number of symbols is even, the shift direction is set to a predetermined opposite direction opposite to the predetermined direction ..."); and
attaching the data header to the shifted data member to form the encrypted data set (KOBAYASHI Page 3 "A shift circuit for generating encrypted data by shifting by an amount.").
SIMON teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of KOBAYASHI and SHIRAISHI:
wherein a plurality of data members of the original data set are transformed respectively into a plurality of local bits rings, the local bits rings are shifted respectively to generate a plurality of shifted data members, the packet encryption method comprises: combining the shifted data members together and transforming into a global bits ring ([0049] "… concatenation step 20 in which the two values … are concatenated.");
Concatenating multiple bit strings that can then be encrypted as a single value is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by SIMON. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circular bit shift of KOBAYASHI and SHIRAISHI with the data packet handling of SIMON with the motivation to handle the encrypted data as a single data object to send, rather than a collection of individually encrypted data values.
Regarding claim 7:
Examiner notes that these steps simply recite previously claimed steps in reverse, and that pages 13-14 of the prior art, in a like manner, teach "decryption" as a matter of performing previous steps in reverse.
The combination of KOBAYASHI, SHIRAISHI, and SIMON teaches:
The packet encryption method according to claim 6, further comprising: transforming the shifted global data into a global decoding bits ring (KOBAYASHI Page 3 "A shift circuit for generating encrypted data by shifting by an amount.");
shifting the global decoding bits ring by the distance, so as to generate a decoded global data (KOBAYASHI Page 13 "In the same way as 0, the shift direction change designating section 18 shifts to the right if the number of “1”'s is even ...");
separating the decoded global data into a plurality of decoding data members (SIMON [0049] "… concatenation step 20 in which the two values … are concatenated.");
transforming the decoding data members into a plurality of local decoding bits rings (SIMON [0049] "… concatenation step 20 in which the two values … are concatenated.");
Concatenating multiple bit strings that can then be encrypted as a single value is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by SIMON. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circular bit shift of KOBAYASHI, SHIRAISHI, and SIMON with the data packet handling of SIMON with the motivation to handle the encrypted data as a single data object to send, rather than a collection of individually encrypted data values.
shifting the local decoding bits rings by the distance, so as to generate a plurality of local decoded data members (KOBAYASHI Page 13 "In the same way as 0, the shift direction change designating section 18 shifts to the right if the number of “1”'s is even ..."); and
obtaining a decrypted data set based on the decoded data members (KOBAYASHI Page 4 "An encryption processing apparatus … for dividing binary serial data composed of a symbol of 0 or 1 into predetermined bits to generate a divided bit string.").
Regarding claims 13 and 20:
These claims are rejected with the same justification, mutatis mutandis, as their counterpart claim 6 above.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOBAYASHI (Doc ID JP 2001117491 A) and SHIRAISHI et al (Doc ID US 20230246929 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of MAEDA et al (Doc ID US 20040106415 A1).
Regarding claim 14:
The combination of KOBAYASHI and SHIRAISHI teaches:
The electronic apparatus according to claim 8,
MAEDA teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of KOBAYASHI and SHIRAISHI:
wherein the electronic apparatus is a handhold controller, a tracker device or a head-mounted display device ([0028] "… In FIG. 1, the position information management system … comprises a terminal 10 (for example, a mobile phone terminal with a GPS function) …").
Collecting data from a device which tracks positional data is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by MAEDA. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circular bit shift of KOBAYASHI and SHIRAISHI with the GPS device of MAEDA with the motivation to provide GPS coordinates as data objects for encryption.
Regarding claim 15:
The combination of KOBAYASHI, SHIRAISHI, and MAEDA teaches:
The electronic apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the original data set comprises positioning coordinates of the handhold controller, the tracker device or the head-mounted display device ([0080] "... the positioning unit 101 measures the current position at a predetermined timing (S31). The encryption unit 103 encrypts the … measured position coordinates ...").
Collecting data from a device which tracks positional data is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by MAEDA. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circular bit shift of KOBAYASHI, SHIRAISHI, and MAEDA with the GPS coordinates of MAEDA with the motivation to provide GPS coordinates as data objects for encryption.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The website at https://golangprojectstructure.com/caesar-cipher-secret-messages/ (2021) references the Caesar Cipher, and describes an encryption method which is very similar to the claimed invention. The Caesar Cipher was developed in approximately 100 BCE, and involves shifting letters a predetermined number of positions in one direction. However, the original Caesar Cipher moves characters along the entire alphabet, and not within a single word or string.
The website at https://onlinetoolz.net/bitshift (2019) describes a circular bit shift, which is a what the claimed invention fundamentally performs. This source is not relied on only because it lacks the particular use cases and manner of choosing shift amount and directions as claimed.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 BRANDON BINCZAK whose telephone number is (703)756-4528. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0800-1700.
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached on (571) 270-5143. 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.
/BB/Examiner, Art Unit 2437
/BENJAMIN E LANIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights