DETAILED ACTION
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 by applicant dated 07/29/2024 and 08/11/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 10/27/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202211324998.1 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1, 4, 6-7, 17 and 20 in the reply filed on 04/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-3, 5, 8-16, and 18-19 are withdrawn.
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 1, 4, 6-7, 17 and 20 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.
As per claim 1, 17 and 20, the claims recite “decrypting the encrypted data by using the received object password to obtain the private client key; signing the encrypted data based on the private client key to obtain a signature of the encrypted data”. It is unclear on how the signing limitation is signing the encrypted data, when the encrypted data has already been decrypted.
Dependent claims 4 and 6-7, depend on claim 1 and they do not further clarity the issues, therefore they are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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 (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 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, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. US 2019/0215157 (hereinafter Guo), in view of Wei et al. US 2021/0328786 (hereinafter Wei), and Landman US 2022/0164452.
As per claim 1, Guo teaches a data processing method, applied to a terminal device comprising a first client, the first client having a key pair, the key pair comprising a public client key and a private client key, and the method comprising: receiving object password and receiving a cloud hosting request for encrypted data (Guo paragraph [0049], [0059], receive password and receive request to store encrypted data) (Although Guo does not explicitly disclose receiving the password after receiving the request. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try to receive the password after receiving the request. There are only two options of when to receive the password, before the request or after the request and the result will be the same, the password is received and the request is received.);
transmitting, the encrypted data, and signature of the encrypted data to a cloud device of the first client, the cloud device storing the encrypted data (Guo paragraph [0058]-[0059], [0083], transmit encrypted data and signature to a server. The server stores the encrypted data).
Guo does not explicitly disclose first client storing encrypted data of private client key, the encrypted data being obtained by encrypting the private client key according to an object password;
decrypting the encrypted data by using the received object password to obtain the private client key;
signing data based on the private client key to obtain a signature of the data.
Wei teaches first client storing encrypted data of private client key, the encrypted data being obtained by encrypting the private client key according to an object password (Wei paragraph [0048], [0050], [0061], encrypt private key and store encrypted private key);
decrypting the encrypted data by using the received object password to obtain the private client key (Wei paragraph [0048], [0050], [0062]-[0063], decrypt encrypted private key);
signing data based on the private client key to obtain a signature of the data (Wei paragraph [0062]-[0064], signing data using the decrypted private key).
Thus 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 invention of Guo of encrypting a private key with a password with the teachings of Wei to include locally storing an encrypted private key and decrypting the encrypted private key in order to securely store the private key locally for further use. 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 invention of Guo of transmitting the encrypted data with a signature with the teachings of Wei to include signing based on the private key because the results would have been predictable and resulted in using the private key to generate the signature.
Guo in view of Wei does not explicitly disclose transmitting public client key to a device, the device performing an operation after verifying data based on the public client key and signature of the data.
Landman teaches transmitting public client key to a device, the device performing an operation after verifying data based on the public client key and signature of the data (Landman paragraph [0161]-[0163], [0172]-[0174], transmit data, public key and signature of the data. Successfully validating the signature based on the public key and performing an operation).
Thus 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 invention of Guo in view of Wei of transmitting encrypted data with a signature to a server wherein the server stores the encrypted data with the teachings of Landman to include transmitting a public key and verifying a signature based on the public key to perform further operation in order to verify the integrity of the encrypted data before storing the encrypted data.
As per claims 17 and 20, the claims claim a device and a non-transitory computer readable medium essentially corresponding to the method claim 1 above, and they are rejected, at least for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 6-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY TSANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm EST.
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.
/HENRY TSANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights