Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication filed on 7/17/2024.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS has been filed.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains phrases which can be implied (e.g. is provided). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-5, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “the input cleartext strings” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 3 recites “the cleartext string” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 4 recites “the cleartext” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claims 5 and 18 recite “that is no longer be specified” which does not make sense. The examiner will assume this meant to read “that is no longer specified”.
Claims 14-16 recite “a search index base at least on…” which does not make sense. The examiner will assume this meant to read “a search index based at least on…”.
Claim 17 recites “the cleartext” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
All rejected dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon one of the above addressed claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by El Defrawy et al. (US Patent Number 9,009,089) hereinafter referred to as Defrawy.
Regarding claim 1, Defrawy disclosed a method for preprocessing cleartext strings, the method comprising:
creating dynamic multi-dimensional spaces based on a key (Defrawy Figs. 3 and 5 and Col. 9 Lines 14-22 and Col. 14 Line 43 – Col. 15 Line 26 for example – creating the zeroed vectors used to store the data of each CDV – the key being the pattern);
creating, based on the dynamic multi-dimensional spaces, a position specific variability for the cleartext strings to form preprocessed strings, wherein characters that appear in different positions within the cleartext strings are encoded differently in the preprocessed strings (Defrawy Figs. 3 and 5 and Col. 14 Line 43 – Col. 15 Line 26 for example – constructing matrix MCDV); and
applying encryption to the preprocessed strings or to preprocessed string fragments to form encrypted preprocessed strings, wherein the encrypted preprocessed strings are searchable in a search index (Defrawy Figs. 3 and 5 and Col. 14 Line 43 – Col. 15 Line 26 for example – E(CDV)).
Regarding claim 2, Defrawy disclosed applying the position specific variability and encryption on n-grams of the input cleartext strings to execute partial match searches (Defrawy Figs. 3 and 5 and Col. 14 Line 43 – Col. 15 Line 26 for example – substring cases).
Regarding claim 3, Defrawy disclosed that the dynamic multi-dimensional spaces are used in the position specific variability to convert a series of characters in the cleartext string to a multi-dimensional output (Defrawy Figs. 3 and 5 and Col. 14 Line 43 – Col. 15 Line 26 for example).
Regarding claim 4, Defrawy disclosed that each character in the series of characters in the cleartext comprises input data that is single dimensional, and which has a position that is specified by a single coordinate (Defrawy Figs. 3 and 5 and Col. 14 Line 43 – Col. 15 Line 26 for example –).
Regarding claim 5, Defrawy disclosed that each character in the multi-dimensional output has a position that is no longer be specified by a single coordinate, and is instead specified by a set of coordinates (Defrawy Figs. 3 and 5 and Col. 14 Line 43 – Col. 15 Line 26 for example).
Regarding claim 6, Defrawy disclosed that the key comprises a cryptographic key (Defrawy Figs. 3 and 5 and Col. 14 Line 43 – Col. 15 Line 26 for example – the examiner contends that this limitation is non-limiting because the claimed “cryptographic key” is never used in any manner to perform cryptography or cryptographic operations. As such, the claim limitation is a “cryptographic key” in name only and the system of Defrawy is functionally equivalent to the claimed system.).
Regarding claim 8, Defrawy disclosed that the position specific variability preserves character positional information and character context information from the cleartext strings in the preprocessed strings (Defrawy Figs. 3 and 5 and Col. 14 Line 43 – Col. 15 Line 26 for example).
Regarding claim 9, Defrawy disclosed that the encrypted preprocessed strings are searchable in the search index based on the character positional information and character context information in the preprocessed strings (Defrawy Figs. 3 and 5 and Col. 14 Line 43 – Col. 15 Line 26 for example).
Regarding claim 10, Defrawy disclosed that position specific variability when applied to the cleartext strings produces preprocessed strings with a larger number of characters than the cleartext strings (Defrawy Figs. 3 and 5 and Col. 14 Line 43 – Col. 15 Line 26 for example).
Regarding claim 11, Defrawy disclosed a method for preprocessing cleartext strings, the method comprising:
creating, with a cryptographic key, dynamic multi-dimensional spaces (Defrawy Figs. 3 and 5 and Col. 14 Line 43 – Col. 15 Line 26 for example);
creating preprocessed strings from the cleartext strings by using the dynamic multi-dimensional spaces to convert each series of characters in an input cleartext string to a multi-dimensional output so that a resulting preprocessed string has more characters than the input cleartext string (Defrawy Figs. 3 and 5 and Col. 14 Line 43 – Col. 15 Line 26 for example); and
applying encryption to the preprocessed strings or to preprocessed string fragments to form encrypted preprocessed strings, wherein the encrypted preprocessed strings are searchable in a search index (Defrawy Figs. 3 and 5 and Col. 14 Line 43 – Col. 15 Line 26 for example).
Regarding claim 12, Defrawy disclosed that creating preprocessed strings comprises encoding characters that appear in different positions within the input cleartext string differently in the resulting preprocessed string (Defrawy Figs. 3 and 5 and Col. 14 Line 43 – Col. 15 Line 26 for example).
Regarding claim 13, Defrawy disclosed that creating preprocessed strings further comprises preserving character positional information and character context information from the input cleartext string (Defrawy Figs. 3 and 5 and Col. 14 Line 43 – Col. 15 Line 26 for example).
Regarding claim 14, Defrawy disclosed that the encrypted preprocessed strings are searchable in a search index base at least on the character positional information (Defrawy Figs. 3 and 5 and Col. 14 Line 43 – Col. 15 Line 26 for example).
Regarding claim 15, Defrawy disclosed that the encrypted preprocessed strings are searchable in a search index base at least on the character context information (Defrawy Figs. 3 and 5 and Col. 14 Line 43 – Col. 15 Line 26 for example).
Regarding claim 16, Defrawy disclosed that the encrypted preprocessed strings are searchable in a search index base at least on the character positional information and the character context information (Defrawy Figs. 3 and 5 and Col. 14 Line 43 – Col. 15 Line 26 for example).
Regarding claim 17, Defrawy disclosed that each character in the series of characters in the cleartext comprises input data that is single dimensional, and which has a position that is specified by a single coordinate (Defrawy Figs. 3 and 5 and Col. 14 Line 43 – Col. 15 Line 26 for example).
Regarding claim 18, Defrawy disclosed that each character in the resulting preprocessed string has a position that is no longer be specified by a single coordinate, and is instead specified by a set of coordinates (Defrawy Figs. 3 and 5 and Col. 14 Line 43 – Col. 15 Line 26 for example).
Regarding claim 19, Defrawy disclosed that creating preprocessed strings from the cleartext strings comprises a confusion process that re-arranges the series of characters in the input cleartext multiple times (Defrawy Figs. 3 and 5 and Col. 14 Line 43 – Col. 15 Line 26 for example).
Regarding claim 20, Defrawy disclosed that creating preprocessed strings from the cleartext strings comprises a diffusion process that alters the series of characters in the input cleartext string to different characters multiple times (Defrawy Figs. 3 and 5 and Col. 14 Line 43 – Col. 15 Line 26 for example).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Defrawy.
Regarding claim 7, Defrawy taught pattern matching being used in many areas including text processing, searching databases, etc. but did not explicitly teach that the encrypted preprocessed strings represent a file system.
Official Notice: It was well known in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to use pattern matching to search file systems. As such, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the teachings of Defrawy in a manner to search file systems. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a secure means for pattern matching in a file system.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 have been rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW T HENNING whose telephone number is (571)272-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-3PM EST.
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, William Korzuch can be reached at (571)272-7589. 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.
/MATTHEW T HENNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491