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 .
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, 2, 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite mathematical computations that can be performed by hand. For instance, block cryptographic computations, using processing rounds can be performed by hand (claims 1/21). Obtaining blocks to form an input for a next round can be performed by hand (claims 2/22). Using random data and plaintext data as input can be performed by hand. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the data is not used for the purpose of turning the plaintext into ciphertext. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite limitations such as: a ciphering circuit, which was well known in the encryption field and a pseudorandom number generator, which was also well known in the field. These are considered insignificant extra solution activity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 2, 9, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Codabux-Rossan et al. (AES CCMP Algorithm with N-Way Interleaved Cipher Block Chaining).
Regarding claims 1 and 21, Codabux-Rossan teaches a method (and corresponding unit) for concurrently executing a first block cryptographic computation and a second block cryptographic computation using a ciphering circuit, the method comprising:
Computing using the first block cryptographic computation a first output block by executing a plurality of first processing rounds (Using Cipher block chaining (CBC) in AES (which uses multiple rounds to generate output. Multiple independent message blocks with N different IVs (which would generate different output blocks) – see page 533 IV.
Computing, using the second block cryptographic computation a second output block by executing a plurality of second processing rounds (Using Cipher block chaining (CBC) in AES (which uses multiple rounds to generate output. Multiple independent message blocks with N different IVs (which would generate different output blocks) – see page 533 IV.
Alternately executing respective first and second processing rounds in a round-interleaved sequence (Two-way CBC interleaving as an optimization in the AES CCMP encryption. In two-way interleaved chaining, the first, third, and every two block thereafter is encrypted in CNC mode. The second, fourth, and every two blocks thereafter is encrypted as another stream – see page 533 IV and page 534 figure III).
Regarding claims 2 and 22, Codabux-Rossan teaches the first block cryptographic computation and the second block cryptographic computations are iterated block computations, wherein respective first and second intermediate blocks are obtained in an alternating sequence (AES intrinsically comprises a set of iterations. Intermediate blocks are shown in figure III see blue and orange arrows), the method further comprising
Obtaining a plurality of first intermediate blocks, each first intermediate block resulting from a corresponding first processing found to form an input for a next processing round (AES uses rounds to produce encrypted data. Figure III shows intermediate block result input into next round – see page 533 IV and 534 figure III).
Obtaining a plurality of second intermediate blocks, each second intermediate block resulting from a corresponding second processing found to form an input for a second next processing round (AES uses rounds to produce encrypted data. Figure III shows intermediate block result input into next round – see page 533 IV and 534 figure III).
Regarding claim 9, Codabux-Rossan teaches that the first block cryptographic computation and the second block cryptographic computation are iterated key-alternating block cryptographic computations in accordance with AES (Codabux-Rossan is teaching an AES encryption – see entire document), wherein each of the first and second input blocks and the first and second output blocks forms a two-dimensional state array composed of data elements of one byte each, and wherein each round of at least part of the first and second processing rounds involves a byte substitution operation, a row shifting operation, a column mixing operation, and round key addition operation (See page 529 which teaches that AES includes and is defined by these operations). Additional evidence is provided by Sasdrich et al. (US 2022/0191004) which teaches that AES is known by: “the function components of the AES cryptographic operation may be the AddRoundKey, ShiftRows, SubBytes, and MixColumns sub-operations. In some embodiments, the AES cryptographic operation may operate on a two-dimensional array of bytes where the ShiftRows, SubBytes, and MixColumns sub-operations may each perform a transformation of the bytes in the two-dimensional array to modify one or more of the bytes” – see [0026]. Therefore, these elements are intrinsic to Codabux-Rossan.
Therefore, it appears that the teachings of Codabux-Rossan anticipate the limitations of claims 1 (the input/output of the blocks as well as the interleaving in the order described in the claim limitations), 2, 9, 21, and 22. In the alternative, even if the claimed invention is not identical to that disclosed by the cited reference, the differences between that which is disclosed and that which is claimed are considered to be so slight that that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify the teachings of Codabux-Rossan in order to create the claimed invention.
Accordingly, the claimed invention as a whole was at least prima facie obvious, if not anticipated by the reference, especially in the absence of sufficient, clear, and convincing evidence to the contrary.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Codabux-Rossan et al. (AES CCMP Algorithm with N-Way Interleaved Cipher Block Chaining) in view of Shachar et al. (US 2023/0306429)
The teachings of Codabux-Rossan are relied upon for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 10, Codabux-Rossan does not teach applying dynamic obfuscation in the SB and applying Boolean masking in the SR, MC, and AK.
Shachar teaches: data anonymization seeks to protect private or sensitive data by deleting or encrypting PII parameters from a database. Data anonymization is operated for the purpose of protecting an individual's or company's private activities while maintaining the integrity of the data gathered and shared. Data anonymization is also known as “data obfuscation,” “data masking,” or “data de-identification.” – see [0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Codabux-Rossan by applying masking and obfuscation to operations, in order to protect privacy as well as maintain the integrity of the data, based upon the beneficial teachings provided by Shachar. These modifications would result in more security to the system.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Codabux-Rossan et al. (AES CCMP Algorithm with N-Way Interleaved Cipher Block Chaining) in view of Wu et al. (US 2016/0352509).
The teachings of Codabux-Rossan are relied upon for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 18, Codabux-Rossan teaches that the second input block includes target data (intrinsic to AES), but does not teach that the first input block includes random input data.
Wu teaches the random-number-based interleaving of dummy cycles and genuine cycles described above in relation to the randomized AES and RSA processes may be similarly performed where the constant time cryptographic co-processor engine 109 encrypts or decrypts data based on ECC algorithms – see [0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Codabux-Rossan by interleaving random data within the target data, in order to further protect data to be secured, based upon the beneficial teachings provided by Wu. These modifications would result in more security to the system.
Regarding claim 19, Wu teaches using a random number generator – see [0028] (please note pseudo random generators were notoriously well known before the effective filing date of the invention as well).
Regarding claim 20, Codabux-Rossan further teaches that the input data includes plaintext or ciphertext, which is intrinsic to AES.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art is disclosed above. However, the prior art does not teach or suggest the limitations of claims 3 and 23 in combination with the limitations of the independent claims from which they depend.
Claims 4-8 and 11 and 24-26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art is disclosed above. However, the prior art does not teach or suggest the limitations of claims 4 and 24, including concurrency, in combination with the limitations of the independent claims from which they depend.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA C LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7am-2pm.
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.
/LISA C LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495