DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to amendment filed on 01/02/2026. Claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
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 .
Response to Amendments
Applicant's claims amendments have overcome the USC 112 rejections previously set forth in the office action mailed on 10/01/2026.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner contacted the applicant’s representative to expedite prosecution, see interview summary. The applicant’s representative indicated that the applicant is requesting an office action.
Response to Arguments filed on 01/02/2026
The applicant’s arguments in Page 10 is considered moot in light of the newly found prior arts. Please see detailed rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “comprising the plurality of noise values”, should be “comprising a plurality of noise values”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 6-8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-8 of US patent No. US 12069161 B2, hereinafter 161.
Instant Application 18/769,226
US 12069161 B2
1. A method of efficiently transforming encrypted data structures representing sets of identifiers for secure and computationally efficient network transmission, comprising: maintaining, by a worker computing device comprising one or more processors and a memory, a private decryption key corresponding in part to an aggregated public key;
1. (Currently Amended) A method of efficiently transforming encrypted data structures representing sets of identifiers for secure and computationally efficient network transmission, comprising: maintaining, by a worker computing device comprising one or more processors and a memory, in the memory, a private decryption key corresponding in part to an aggregated public key;
receiving, from a computing device, a first encrypted data structure;
receiving, by the worker computing device from a publisher computing device, a first encrypted data structure;
generating, by the worker computing device, a random variable to determine an amount of noise to add to the partially decrypted data structure;
generating, by the worker computing device, a random variable to determine an amount of noise to add to the partially decrypted data
decrypting the first encrypted data structure using the private decryption key to generate a partially decrypted data structure;
decrypting, by the worker computing device, the first encrypted data structure using the private decryption key to generate a partially decrypted data structure;
encrypting the partially decrypted data structure using a second encryption scheme to generate a second encrypted data structure;
encrypting, by the worker computing device, the partially decrypted data structure using a second encryption scheme to generate a second encrypted data structure;
creating, by the worker computing device, a noise array based on a baseline noise value and a maximum frequency value, the noise array comprising the plurality of noise values;
creating, by the worker computing device, a noise array based on a baseline noise value and a maximum frequency value, the noise array comprising a plurality of noise values
encrypting a plurality of noise values using the aggregated public key to generate an encrypted noise array;
6. … encrypting, by the worker computing device, the permuted noise array using the aggregated public key to generate an encrypted noise array; and
transmitting a shuffled data structure to a second worker computing device, the shuffled data structure being generated based on the second encrypted data structure; and
permuting, by the worker computing device, at least two elements of the second encrypted data structure to create a shuffled data structure; and transmitting, by the worker computing device, the shuffled data structure to a second worker computing device.
transmitting the encrypted noise array to an aggregator computing device.
6. … transmitting, by the worker computing device, the encrypted noise array to an aggregator computing device.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein creating the noise array further comprises receiving, by the worker computing device from the second worker computing device, the baseline noise value and the maximum frequency value.
8. The method of claim 6, wherein encrypting the permuted noise array using the aggregated public key further comprises: encrypting, by the worker computing device, a first noise value of the permuted noise array using the aggregated public key to generate a first encrypted noise value;
encrypting, by the worker computing device, a second noise value of the permuted noise array using the aggregated public key to generate a second encrypted noise value; and
aggregating, by the worker computing device, the first noise value and the second noise value to generate the encrypted noise array.
7. (Original) The method of claim 6, wherein creating the noise array further comprises receiving, by the worker computing device from the second worker computing device, the baseline noise value and the maximum frequency value.
8. (Original) The method of claim 6, wherein encrypting the permuted noise array using the aggregated public key further comprises: encrypting, by the worker computing device, a first noise value of the permuted noise array using the aggregated public key to generate a first encrypted noise value; encrypting, by the worker computing device, a second noise value of the permuted noise array using the aggregated public key to generate a second encrypted noise value;
Similarly Claim 11, 16-18
Similarly Claim 11, 16-18
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 6-8 of 161 contains every element of claims 1, 6-8 of the instant application.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-5, 9-11, 14-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal (US 9049011 B1), hereinafter Agrawal in view of Mattsson (US 20150089574 A1), hereinafter Mattsson, and Pizzi et. al. (US 20200134543 A1), hereinafter Pizzi, POURZANDI (US 20170124348 A1), hereinafter POURZANDI, and Carlson (US 6954770 B1), hereinafter Carlson.
Regarding claim 1, Agrawal teaches a method of efficiently transforming encrypted data [structures] representing sets of identifiers for secure and computationally efficient network transmission (Agrawal Abstract discloses a system performing the method illustrated in Figures 7-8 for transforming encrypted data representing publisher private key as illustrated in Figures 7-8 for secure storage in a network), comprising:
maintaining, by a worker computing device comprising one or more processors and a memory, a private decryption key corresponding in part to an aggregated public key (Agrawal Col. 14 line 45-48 “The security system computing resources, in response to receiving the notification, create a partial decryption of the stored encrypted publication private key using its security system private key share, as in 814.”, where each security system computing resource, where one of them corresponds to worker computing device, maintains a private decryption key share, corresponding to the private decryption key, where the security system public key disclosed in Col. 13 line 30-35 and illustrated in Figure 7 (706) corresponds to the aggregated public key, where the public key for the security system comprising a plurality of security system computing resources corresponds to aggregated public key );
receiving, from a computing device, a first encrypted data [structure] (Agrawal Col. 13 line 53-56 “The security system 710 receives the encrypted publication private key 710 and distributes that encrypted publication private key to computing resources of the security system for storage, as in 712.”, where each security system computing resource within the security system receives encrypted publication private key corresponding to the first encrypted data structure , received form the publisher as illustrated in the left column of Figure 7);
decrypting the first encrypted data structure using the private decryption key to generate a partially decrypted data [structure] (Agrawal Col. 14 line 45-48 “The security system computing resources, in response to receiving the notification, create a partial decryption of the stored encrypted publication private key using its security system private key share, as in 814.”);
encrypting the partially decrypted data [structure] using a second encryption scheme to generate a second encrypted data [structure] (Agrawal Col. 4 line 48-65 “Upon completing partial decryption of the stored publication private key, each responding security system computing resource provides the partial decryption to the computing resource of the security system designated as the delegate, as in 818. Communication between the security system computing resources may be performed using asymmetric or symmetric cryptography so that communication between the computing resources is secure.”, where the partial decryption of the publication private key, corresponding to a partially decrypted data structure, is followed with symmetric encryption to generate a second encrypted data structure, where the symmetric cryptography corresponds to the second encryption scheme);
transmitting a [shuffled data structure] to a second worker computing device, the [shuffled data structure] being generated based on the second encrypted data structure (Agrawal Col. 4 line 48-65 “Upon completing partial decryption of the stored publication private key, each responding security system computing resource provides the partial decryption to the computing resource of the security system designated as the delegate, as in 818. Communication between the security system computing resources may be performed using asymmetric or symmetric cryptography so that communication between the computing resources is secure.”, where the partial decryption of the publication private key, corresponding to a partially decrypted data structure, is followed with symmetric encryption to generate a second encrypted data structure and then provide/transmit the encrypted partially decrypted publication private key to the subscriber via delegate, i.e. second worker computing device, as illustrated in Figure 8 (822-826)); and
Agrawal does not disclose the below limitations. Emphasis in italic.
Mattsson discloses data structures, transmitting a shuffled data structure to a second worker computing device, the shuffled data structure being generated based on the second encrypted data structure (Mattsson [0021-0022], e.g. [0022] “The data protection engine 120 can protect data in a data table received from the client 110 before it is stored in the clear tables storage module 125…the data protection engine performs one or more encoding operations on all or part of the data in a data table prior to performing one or more shuffling operations as described herein. For instance, the data protection engine can encrypt data fields within a particular column in a data table, can shuffle the encrypted data fields within the column, and can tokenize the shuffled data fields within the column.”, [0046] “the shuffling operations mentioned previously can also be combined with other methods of data protection, such as encryption and tokenization. Encryption and tokenization may occur in different combinations prior to or after the shuffling operations…the original data tables may be processed through a combination of encryption and tokenization before the shuffling operations are performed”, where the protection engine 120 performs the above data table/data structure, protection, i.e. encryption and shuffling/reordering/permutation, and subsequently provide/transmit the protected data to 125 for storage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Agrawal to incorporate the teaching of Mattsson to utilize the above feature, with the motivation of improving security and protection by shuffling data, as recognized by (Mattsson [0004] and throughout).
Agrawal in view of Mattsson do not disclose the below limitations.
Pizzi discloses encrypting a plurality of noise values using the aggregated public key to generate an encrypted noise array; and transmitting the encrypted noise array to an aggregator computing device (Pizzi [0049] “…the secret keys are not transmitted over the airways, but rather only encrypted random numbers are transmitted to the reader 106. ”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Agrawal in view of Mattsson to incorporate the teaching of Pizzi to utilize the above feature, with the motivation of authentication and cryptographically secure the subsequent data transmission, as recognized by (Pizzi [0049] and throughout).
Agrawal in view of Mattsson and Pizzi do not explicitly disclose the below limitation.
POURZANDI discloses generating, by the worker computing device, a random variable to determine an amount of noise to add to the partially decrypted data structure (POURZANDI [0012] “Each comparison response having been partially decrypted with the first share of the private key and placed in the array in a randomized order.”, [0050] “Requester server 12 also randomizes the order of the records/values in the array before sending the partially decrypted and randomized array to survey server 14 (S118).”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Agrawal in view of Mattsson and Pizzi to incorporate the teaching of POURZANDI to utilize the above feature, with the motivation of “Randomizing the values in the array helps prevent someone or even survey server 14 from correlating values or result within a query to a specific data holding entity 18.”, as recognized by (POURZANDI [0068]).
Agrawal in view of Mattsson and Pizzi and POURZANDI does not disclose the below limitation.
Carlson discloses creating, by the worker computing device, a noise array based on a baseline noise value and a maximum frequency value, the noise array comprising the plurality of noise values (Carlson discloses a random number generator, Col. 6 line 24-52 “For subsequent robust random number calculations, all or part of the previous robust random number obtained (i.e., the hash result 153) is used to initialize the {H.sub.1 } words when the next robust random number is generated. The new entropy bits from bus 151 are duplicated, concatenated and padded as described above to form a 512-bit number that is input into the SHA-1 algorithm. By not initializing the {H.sub.i } words for each robust random number calculation, the design of the hardware circuit that implements the mixing function is simplified, resulting in a saving in processing time. Furthermore, a feedback line that would otherwise feed back the last random number generated by the mixing function, to form at least part of the next 512-bit input for the next robust random number calculation is eliminated. FIG. 5 is a flow diagram illustrating the operation of a random number generator according to one embodiment of the invention. As illustrated in FIG. 5, at 505, a plurality of oscillators with high jitter generate binary bits in a random manner. At 510, the bits generated by the plurality of oscillators with high jitter are sampled (i.e., latched by sampling devices). At 515, the latched random bits are input into a LFSR (i.e., by a fixed frequency clock). In one embodiment, the output from each shift register element in the LFSR may be used as a random number. At 520, the output from the LFSR is input (e.g., via bus 151) into a mixing function or algorithm, (e.g., a mixing function that implements the SHA-1 algorithm) to obtain a robust random number.”, where random bits corresponding to baseline noise are inserted in combination with the use of oscilators sampling with high jitters corresponding to frequency and in combination with fixed frequency clock to generate robust random number, where the generated robust random number comprises a plurality of numbers as disclosed n Col. 5 line 54-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Agrawal in view of Mattsson and Pizzi and POURZANDI to incorporate the teaching of Carlson to utilize the above feature, with the motivation of “Because of the widespread use of random numbers in cryptography, a random number generator must be robust enough so that even if the design of the random number generator is known, the random number generated by the random number generator cannot be predicted” , as recognized by (Carlson Col. 1 line 20-24).
Claims 11 is directed to a system, associated with the method claimed in claim 1. Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected with the same rationale and motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Agrawal in view of Mattsson and Pizzi teaches the method of claim 1, receiving the first encrypted data structure further comprises: receiving, by the worker computing device from a first publisher computing device, a third encrypted data structure; receiving, by the worker computing device from a second publisher computing device, a fourth encrypted data structure; and combining, by the worker computing device, the third encrypted data structure and the fourth encrypted data structure to create the first encrypted data structure (Agrawal Col. 7 line 25-30 “The publisher's request is received by one or more computing resource 103 of the security system 102 and one of those computing resources 103 becomes the delegate for managing the communication between the publisher 108 and the computing resources 103 of the security system 102.”, Col. 4 line 48-65 “Upon completing partial decryption of the stored publication private key, each responding security system computing resource provides the partial decryption to the computing resource of the security system designated as the delegate, as in 818. Communication between the security system computing resources may be performed using asymmetric or symmetric cryptography so that communication between the computing resources is secure.”, where any one of the computing resources of the security system can be selected as a delegate, worker computing device, receiving a plurality encrypted partial decryptions, i.e. third, fourth, etc. encrypted data structure, from plurality of computing resource of the security system, i.e. first, second, etc. publisher computing device, to combine the encrypted partial decryptions to generate encrypted publication private key as illustrated in Figure 8 (822)).
Claims 14 is directed to a system, associated with the method claimed in claim 4. Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 4, and is therefore rejected with the same rationale and motivation as claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Agrawal in view of Mattsson and Pizzi teaches the method of claim 1.
Agrawal does not disclose the below limitation.
Mattsson discloses wherein the shuffled data structure comprises a first encrypted counter register and a second encrypted counter register, and transmitting the shuffled data structure to the second worker computing device further comprises: transmitting, by the worker computing device to the second worker computing device, the first encrypted counter register of the shuffled data structure to the second worker computing device in a first message; and transmitting, by the worker computing device to the second worker computing device, the second encrypted counter register of the shuffled data structure to the second worker computing device in a second message (Mattsson [0023] “The data protection engine 120 can protect data in a data table in response to receiving data from the client 110, in response to a request for data protection from the client, in response to a request for access to the data from the client, or in response to any other suitable interaction with the client. In some embodiments, the data protection engine performs updated data protection operations on data in a data table on a pre-determined interval of time, for instance, re-shuffling data in a data table column once every hour or every 24 hours.”, where the shuffling is performed overtime, shuffling the first data table first, i.e. first message, and reshuffling in the second message, where the processed data is provided to 125 as described in claim 1 above, where the registers correspond to the protected table and its index table illustrated in Figure 3, and further described in [0046-047] “[0047] FIG. 6 is a flow diagram illustrating a data shuffling operation, according to one embodiment. A data table is received 605, and a shuffle operation is performed 610 on a data table column to generate a protected table. An index table is generated 615 based on the shuffle operation such that the index table maps values of the received data table to index values representative of a row to which each value of the received data table corresponds. The index table and the protected table are stored 620 for subsequent use.”).
Claims 15 is directed to a system, associated with the method claimed in claim 5. Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 5, and is therefore rejected with the same rationale and motivation as claim 5.
Regarding claim 9, Agrawal in view of Mattsson and Pizzi teaches wherein encrypting the partially decrypted data structure using the encryption scheme further comprises: generating, by the worker computing device, a second encryption key and a second decryption key; storing, by the worker computing device, the second encryption key and the second decryption key in the memory of the worker computing device; and encrypting, by the worker computing device, the partially decrypted data structure using the second encryption key to generate the second encrypted data structure (Agrawal Col. 4 line 48-65 “Upon completing partial decryption of the stored publication private key, each responding security system computing resource provides the partial decryption to the computing resource of the security system designated as the delegate, as in 818. Communication between the security system computing resources may be performed using asymmetric or symmetric cryptography so that communication between the computing resources is secure.”, where the partial decryption of the publication private key, corresponding to a partially decrypted data structure, is followed with asymmetric or symmetric encryption to generate a second encrypted data structure, where the asymmetric cryptography corresponds to the second encryption scheme which includes generating and storing public and private key pairs for encryption).
Claims 19 is directed to a system, associated with the method claimed in claim 9. Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 9, and is therefore rejected with the same rationale and motivation as claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Agrawal in view of Mattsson and Pizzi teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising: receiving, by the worker computing device from a third worker computing device, a second shuffled data structure; decrypting, by the worker computing device, the second shuffled data structure using the second decryption key to generate a second partially decrypted data structure; and transmitting, by the worker computing device, the second partially decrypted data structure to the second worker computing device (Agrawal Figure 8 (818-826), where the delegate receives from plurality of computing resources, one corresponds to a third worker computing device, encrypted partial decryption, i.e. a second shuffled data structure, as disclosed in Col. 4 line 48-65, where the delegate decrypts the encrypted partial decryption received and eventually transmit the partial decryption in combined form and in encrypted form to the subscriber).
Claims 20 is directed to a system, associated with the method claimed in claim 10. Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 10, and is therefore rejected with the same rationale and motivation as claim 10.
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal (US 9049011 B1), hereinafter Agrawal in view of Mattsson (US 20150089574 A1), hereinafter Mattsson, Pizzi, and O'brien (US 20190237176 A1), hereinafter O'brien.
Regarding claim 2, Agrawal in view of Mattsson and Pizzi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein maintaining the private decryption key further comprises:
generating, by the worker computing device, a key pair comprising the private decryption key and a first public encryption key; receiving, by the worker computing device from the second worker computing device, a second public encryption key; and storing, by the worker computing device, the private decryption key and the [aggregated] public key in the memory of the worker computing device (Agrawal Col. 5 line 19-25 “ Each computing resource 103 maintains its own public/private key pair, with the public key known to the other computing resources 103 within the security system 102. These public keys allow the computing resources 103 to authenticate the sender as well as check the integrity of the messages that they exchange with other computing resources within the security system 102.”, where the authentication and secure communication indicates storing the cryptographic keys at the computing resources of the security system).
Agrawal in view of Mattsson and Pizzi do not disclose aggregation of the public keys. Emphasis in italic.
Chen discloses aggregating, by the worker computing device, the first public encryption key and the second public encryption key to generate the aggregated public key (O'brien [0006] “combining, via a processor, the first public key and the second public key sequentially, to form a combined public key”, [0100] “a fuel truck for depositing fuel at gas stations needs a special permit to transport gasoline, as does the gas station to sell gasoline. The combined public keys could be used in verifying a transaction where a gas truck deposits gasoline at a gas station.”, [0109-0114] further disclose combining/aggregating two public keys to create a combined/aggregated public key, to be transmitted to a pharmacy).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Agrawal in view of Mattsson and Pizzi to incorporate the teaching of O'brien to utilize the above feature, with the motivation of verifying transactions on various applications, e.g. prescription fulfillment, as recognized by (O'brien Abstract and throughout).
Claims 12 is directed to a system, associated with the method claimed in claim 2. Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 2, and is therefore rejected with the same rationale and motivation as claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Agrawal in view of Mattsson and Pizzi teaches the method of claim 2.
Agrawal in view of Mattsson and Pizzi do not disclose the below limitation.
O'brien discloses further comprising transmitting, by the worker computing device to a publisher computing device, the aggregated public key (O'brien [0006] “combining, via a processor, the first public key and the second public key sequentially, to form a combined public key”, [0100] “a fuel truck for depositing fuel at gas stations needs a special permit to transport gasoline, as does the gas station to sell gasoline. The combined public keys could be used in verifying a transaction where a gas truck deposits gasoline at a gas station.”, [0109-0114] further disclose combining/aggregating two public keys to create a combined/aggregated public key, to be transmitted to a pharmacy).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Agrawal in view of Mattsson and Pizzi to incorporate the teaching of O'brien to utilize the above feature, with the motivation of verifying transactions on various applications, e.g. prescription fulfillment, as recognized by (O'brien Abstract and throughout).
Claims 13 is directed to a system, associated with the method claimed in claim 3. Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 3, and is therefore rejected with the same rationale and motivation as claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and further overcome any pending objections/rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter.
Agrawal discloses a blinding factor that is randomly generated, encrypted and transmitted from a subscriber to a security system, where the encrypted blinding factor is multiplied by the encrypted publication private key, where the computing resources create a partial decryption of the multiplication, sent to the a delegate to produce the multiplication of the publication private key and blinding factor, which is eventually sent to the subscriber. Mattsson discloses the protection of a table data structure by encrypting and followed by permutation/shuffling of the table data structure. Pizzi discloses an authentication method, where secret keys are not transmitted over the airways, but rather only encrypted random numbers are transmitted to a reader. These random numbers are always encrypted simultaneously, where a random session key can be calculated by a measurement device and the reader from the random numbers generated, in order to cryptologically secure subsequent data transmission. Hardy (US 20170310643 A1) discloses multiplying a partial gradient with random number b and encrypts the result. While the above prior arts disclose the above concepts, however, none of the prior arts disclose the limitations recited in claims 6 and 16.
Conclusion
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BASSAM A NOAMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-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, Eleni A. Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-3867. 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.
/BASSAM A NOAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497