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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The acronym(s) “IMU” appear(s) with no indication to what they refer. Standard practice is to include the fully spelled out name or phrase on first usage, followed immediately by the acronym in parentheses (i.e., “… Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) …”), and thereafter use only the acronym.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, and 17-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, and 17-19:
Each of the claims contains at least two elements separated by commas denoting a list of steps, actions, or limitations. The article “and” should be added before the last element in each claim (i.e. claim 5, “… excluded from being transformed and shifted, and the data payload comprises …”).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As drafted, the claim limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, may be performed in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind (or with pen and paper).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The claims, minus their recited generic computer components, are summarized as follows:
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 16 recite(s):
Performing a rotating shift of a bit string taken from a set in a direction chosen by counting the number of bits with a value of “1,” or “true” bits.
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 17 recite(s):
A description of a bit string and abstraction of the bit-string as a “ring.”
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 18 recite(s):
Choosing the number of shift positions based on the amount of true or false bits.
Claim(s) 4 and 11 recite(s):
Shifting the bits by a fixed number of positions.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 recite(s):
The set from which the bit string was taken as also comprising a “header.”
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 recite(s):
Performing the above steps on each of a plurality of bit strings in a set.
Concatenating the resultant shifted bit strings.
Performing a rotating shift on the concatenated bit string.
Claim(s) 7 recite(s):
Performing the steps in reverse order to decode the shifted bit strings.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because other aspects of the claims’ limitations amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and functions (electronic apparatus, transceiver, processor, non-transitory computer readable storage medium). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding the generic computer components, patents may be directed to abstract ideas where they disclose the use of an already available technology, with its already available basic functions, to use as a tool in executing the claimed process.
The claims further do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there is nothing in the claims, whether considered individually or in their ordered combination, that would transform the application into something “significantly more” than the abstract idea of performing simplistic bitwise operations on a string of bits. Further, the claims do not contain steps through which the invention represents an improvement to computer technology, to include improvement over data encryption methods. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14:
It is dependent on one or more rejected claims, and thus inherit those rejections. This rejection could be overcome by overcoming the rejection(s) to any claims upon which this claim depends, or by amending the claim such that it is no longer dependent on any rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 16:
Claim 1 recites, “… generating an encrypted data set based on the shifted data member.” Claims 8 and 16 recite similar language. These claims lack required written description in the claims. This limitation implies that some additional cryptographic operation is performed on the bit string; however, specification paragraph 0047, inter alia, makes it clear that the rotating bit shift described in the previous limitations of the claims in question is the extent of any “encryption” performed. The bit-shifted bit string is simply attached to the same header which was attached to the original bit string, and sent to its intended destination. No “generation” of any “encrypted data set” is performed. This rejection can be overcome by the amending the claims such that limitations are limited to those which are provided adequate written description.
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20:
These claims are rejected with the same reasoning as applied to claims 1, 8, and 16 above regarding generation of an encrypted data set. The disclosure lacks the written description necessary to support any “encryption” operations other than the bit-shifted bit streams.
Regarding claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14, 15, and 17-19:
They are dependent on one or more rejected claims, and thus inherit those rejections. This rejection could be overcome by overcoming the rejection(s) to any claims upon which these claims depend, or by amending the claims such that they are no longer dependent on any rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 16:
Claim 1 recites, “… in response to a local amount … being odd, shifting data bits in the local bits ring along a first direction …; in response to the local amount … being even, shifting the data bits in the local bits ring along a second direction …”. Claims 8 and 16 recites similar language. The claims are indefinite because it is unclear whether one or two bit shifts is taking place. The specification in paragraphs 0029-0031, inter alia, are explicit that one shift takes place, the direction of which is decided depending on the count of either 1-bits or 0-bits being even or odd. However, the wording of the claims is inclusive, and can be interpreted that one or two shifts may take place depending on the counts of both the 1-bits and 0-bits. This rejection can be overcome by amending the claims such that they unambiguously recite the same subject matter as taught in the specification.
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20:
These claims are rejected with the same reasoning applied to the claims 1, 8, and 16 above regarding the number of shift operations performed. The specification is explicit that only one shift is performed on the concatenated bit-shifted bit string.
Regarding claim 7:
The claim describes steps to “decode” the “data members,” but neglects to specify the directions or number of shifted bit positions required to do so. While one of skill in the art may infer that the directions and amounts are opposite those in the encoding steps, that they are not explicitly claimed makes the steps ambiguous, and thus indefinite.
Regarding claims 2-5, 9-12, 14, 15, and 17-19:
They are dependent on one or more rejected claims, and thus inherit those rejections. This rejection could be overcome by overcoming the rejection(s) to any claims upon which these claims depend, or by amending the claims such that they are no longer dependent on any rejected claim.
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 1-3, 8-10, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KOBAYASHI (Doc ID JP 2001117491 A).
Regarding claim 1:
KOBAYASHI teaches:
A packet encryption method, comprising: transforming a data member of an original data set into 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.");
in response to a local amount of 1-bits or a local amount of 0-bits in the local bits ring being odd, shifting data bits in the local bits ring along a first direction, 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 1-bits or the local amount of 0-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, 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
generating an encrypted data set based on the shifted data member (Page 3 "A shift circuit for generating encrypted data by shifting by an amount.").
Regarding claim 2:
KOBAYASHI teaches:
The packet encryption method according to claim 1, wherein the data member comprises a most significant bit and a least significant bit (Fig. 4. Examiner notes that the "most" and "least significant bit" (MSB and LSB) are well-known terms in the art that apply to all bit strings and simply refer to the bits with the highest and lowest potential values, respectively.),
the most significant bit and the least significant bit 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.).
Regarding claim 2:
KOBAYASHI teaches:
The packet encryption method according to claim 1, wherein the data bits in the local bits ring are shifted by a dynamic distance, the dynamic distance is determined according to an amount of 1-bits or 0-bits in the local bits ring (Page 4 "… the shift amount is further determined based on the number of symbols.").
Regarding claim 8:
KOBAYASHI teaches:
An electronic apparatus, comprising: a transceiver; and a processor, coupled with the transceiver, wherein the processor is configured to (Page 3 "An encryption processing apparatus according to a first aspect of the present invention …"):
The remainder of this claim’s limitations are rejected with the same prior art mapping and justification, mutatis mutandis, as its counterpart claim 1.
Regarding claims 9, 10, and 16-18:
These claims are rejected with the same justification, mutatis mutandis, as their counterpart claims 1-3 above.
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 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOBAYASHI (Doc ID JP 2001117491 A) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of NAKAMURA (Doc ID WO 2018181934 A2).
Regarding claim 4:
KOBAYASHI teaches:
The packet encryption method according to claim 1,
NAKAMURA teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by KOBAYASHI:
wherein the data bits in the local bits ring are shifted by 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 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 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOBAYASHI (Doc ID JP 2001117491 A) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 16 above, and further in view of JIN et al (Doc ID US 20070133528 A1).
Regarding claim 5:
KOBAYASHI teaches:
The packet encryption method according to claim 1,
JIN teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by KOBAYASHI:
The packet encryption method according to claim 1, wherein the original data set comprises a data header and a data payload (Fig. 4 illustrates a packet containing a header and payload.),
the data header is excluded from being transformed and shifted ([0030] "The VPN server 113 encrypts the IP payload but not the IP header of the IP packet …"),
the data payload comprises the data member to be transformed and shifted ([0030] "The VPN server 113 encrypts the IP payload …").
Performing bit shift operations on a payload of a data packet while not shifting the header is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by JIN. 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 with the data packet handling of JIN with the motivation to encrypt the data contained in a data packet while leaving the header as plain text to be more easily handled by the ultimate receiver.
Regarding claims 12 and 19:
These claims are rejected with the same justification, mutatis mutandis, as their counterpart claims 5 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) 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:
KOBAYASHI teaches:
The packet encryption method according to claim 1,
in response to a global amount of 1-bits or a global amount of 0-bits in the global bits ring being odd, shifting data bits in the global bits ring along the first direction, so as to generate a shifted global data (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 1-bits or the global amount of 0-bits in the global bits ring being even, shifting the data bits in the global bits ring along the second direction, so as to generate the shifted global data (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
generating the encrypted data set based on the shifted global data (Page 3 "A shift circuit for generating encrypted data by shifting by an amount.").
SIMON teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by KOBAYASHI:
The packet encryption method according to claim 1, 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 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 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, 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 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, 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) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of MAEDA et al (Doc ID US 20040106415 A1).
Regarding claim 14:
KOBAYASHI teaches:
The electronic apparatus according to claim 8,
MAEDA teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by KOBAYASHI:
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 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 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 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.
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