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 (IDS) submitted on 06/28/2024 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 § 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 a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a process processing a message on a device. The underlying invention is merely directed towards data processing a message by computing functions and is therefore abstract. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. sending data). The data processing of a message by computing functions does not enhance the functionality of the computer. Further, the claim does not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Dependent claims 2-8 do not cure the deficiency of claim 1, therefore are also rejected 35 USC 101 for they dependency on claim 1.
In regards to claim 9, claim 9 is directed towards a “tangible processor-readable storage media”. The specification does not define this and does not exclude a signal and carrier wave and is an open ended definition. An ordinary skill in the art will define the computer useable medium to include signal and carrier wave which are a non-statutory subject matter. Examiner suggests adding the phrase "non-transitory" before “tangible processor-readable storage media”, to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection set forth for claim 9.
Dependent claims 10-16 do not cure the deficiency of claim 9 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 for their dependency upon claim 9.
Claim 17 is directed to a process processing a message on a device. The underlying invention is merely directed towards data processing a message by computing functions and is therefore abstract. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. sending data). The data processing of a message by computing functions does not enhance the functionality of the computer. Further, the claim does not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Dependent claims 18-20 do not cure the deficiency of claim 17, therefore are also rejected 35 USC 101 for they dependency on claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 of this title, 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw et al. (US 2013/0044876), hereon referred to as Shaw, in view of Durham et al. (US 2022/0222158), and hereon referred to as Durham.
In regards to claims 1, 9 & 17 Shaw discloses cryptographically generating an intermediate message authentication code as a function of the message and a cryptographic key assigned to a first party (The process includes to encode the plaintext message into DNA code 3 words at a time, encryption with a pre-shared secret key; Paragraphs 0073-0090); and wherein each code of the one or more other intermediate message authentication codes is cryptographically generated as a function of the message and individual cryptographic key assigned to each of the one or more second parties (A common genome to use as an HMAC key; a pre-shared secret unique to each party; and HMAC algorithm; Paragraphs 0073-0090).
However, Shaw does not disclose generating a first instance of an aggregate message authentication code corresponding to the message by combining the intermediate message authentication code with one or more other intermediate message authentication codes of one or more second parties. In an analogous art Durham discloses generating a first instance of an aggregate message authentication code corresponding to the message by combining the intermediate message authentication code with one or more other intermediate message authentication codes of one or more second parties (Generate an AMAC, each data block in chacheline set is multiplied with a parameter; the resulting products are XORed together to generate GHASH; Paragraphs 0092-0101).
At the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings disclosed by Shaw, with the teachings disclosed by Durham regarding generating a first instance of an aggregate message authentication code corresponding to the message by combining the intermediate message authentication code with one or more other intermediate message authentication codes of one or more second parties. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to provide aggregate GHASH-based message authentication code (MAC) over multiple cachelines with incremental updates (Durham; Paragraph 0002).
In regards to claims 2, 10 & 18, Shaw discloses wherein the first party and the one or more second parties constitute multiple sending parties and further comprising: signing the message with the first instance of the aggregate message authentication code to yield a signed message (The sender encodes the plaintext message and appends the checksum to the message before transmitting; Paragraphs 0080-0090).
In regards to claims 3, 10 & 18, Shaw discloses wherein the first party and the one or more second parties constitute multiple sending parties and further comprising: receiving the message and a second instance of the aggregate message authentication code, the second instance of the aggregate message authentication code being generated from intermediate message authentication codes of multiple sending parties; and comparing the first instance of the aggregate message authentication code to the second instance of the aggregate message authentication code, wherein the message is verified when the first instance of the aggregate message authentication code to the second instance of the aggregate message authentication code match within a difference margin (The receiver extracts the checksum from the message…The hash code computed at the receiver must have an exact match of the check sum; Paragraphs 0080-0090).
In regards to claims 4 & 12, Shaw discloses wherein a number of sending parties signing the message and a number of verifying parties verifying the message are fixed and the difference margin is zero (The computed has code must have an exact match of the checksum; Paragraphs 0080-0090).
In regards to claims 5 & 13, Shaw discloses wherein a number of sending parties signing the message and a number of verifying parties verifying the message are different and the difference margin is dependent on a sum of a number of sending parties signing the message and a number of verifying parties (Three entities possess a pre-shared secret which is unique to each party; Paragraphs 0070-0080).
In regards to claims 6, 14 & 20, the combination of Shaw and Durham discloses wherein cryptographically generating comprises: cryptographically generating an intermediate message authentication code as a function of the message and a cryptographic key assigned to a first party using a Carter-Wegman message authentication code generation function (The elements presented in the claim(s) do not contain any additional features, do not present any inventive step or novelty not addressed/presented in the combination of Shaw and Durham. Examiner takes official notice, that these elements are commonly known, minor design details that are derivable from the prior art and are well known, and obvious to an ordinary skill in the art. The additional features of these claims represent normal design options, which the skilled person would implement the combination of Shaw and Durham, depending on the circumstances, without exercising any inventive activity).
In regards to claims 7 & 15, the combination of Shaw and Durham discloses wherein a number of sending parties signing the message and a number of verifying parties verifying the message are different and cryptographically generating comprises: cryptographically generating an intermediate message authentication code as a function of the message and a cryptographic key assigned to a first party using a Carter-Wegman message authentication code generation function and a key-homomorphic pseudo-random function (The elements presented in the claim(s) do not contain any additional features, do not present any inventive step or novelty not addressed/presented in the combination of Shaw and Durham. Examiner takes official notice, that these elements are commonly known, minor design details that are derivable from the prior art and are well known, and obvious to an ordinary skill in the art. The additional features of these claims represent normal design options, which the skilled person would implement the combination of Shaw and Durham, depending on the circumstances, without exercising any inventive activity).
In regards to claims 8 & 16, Durham discloses wherein combining comprises: performing an XOR operation on the intermediate message authentication code and the one or more other intermediate message authentication codes (The resulting products are XORed together; Paragraphs 0090-0095).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARIF E ULLAH whose telephone number is (571)272-5453. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-5:30.
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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached at 571-272-3739. 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.
/SHARIF E ULLAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495