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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method which appears to be a ‘process’ and one of the four statutory subject matter categories of invention (Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test).
However, the claim appears to not qualify for a streamlined analysis thus a full eligibility and thus a fully eligibility analysis is necessary (Step 2A and Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test).
In Step 2A, Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claims. The claim recites the steps of:
“…the device stores first information specifying the configuration of the device…”
“…obtaining the first cryptographic key and second information specifying a device configuration for which use of the first cryptographic key is permitted…”
“…comparing the second information with the first information to determine whether the first information is consistent with the second information…”
“…in response to determining that the first information is consistent with the second information, performing a first operation using the first cryptographic key on the device.”
The steps performing amount to an abstract idea which falls under a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1, of Subject Matter Eligibility). Abstract ideas falls in the category. The abstract idea falls in the categories of a mental process, for evaluation, judgments, and opinions, and mathematical concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) & MPEP 2106.06) such as comparing the second information with the first information to determine whether first information is consistent with the second information. For example, the courts found that the claim “related to system to monitor access to protected health information in which a rule is created, an audit log is compared with the rule, and a notification is provided if rule is fulfilled”, was directed to an abstract idea of detecting misuse in a computer environment based on analysis log files, while also finding that the claims simply automated a process that was commonly performed without computers in the past. Furthermore, the court found that the claims simply related to the collection and analysis of data is an abstract idea in which there is not inventive concept, and there are no details in the claim that describe an improvement to existing computer technology, Fairwarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys, Inc., No. 15-1985 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In Step 2A, Prong Two, examiner determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application to disqualify abstract as a judicial exception. However, the judicial exception in claim 1 is not integrated into practical because the generically recited elements:
a computer-implemented method
controlling the use of a first cryptographic key in a device.
do not add meaningful limitation to an abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The implementation of comparing information enabling human decision making without using the cryptographic key in any meaningful to improve the functioning of a computer or another technology without reference to what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer function that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Thus, the analysis concludes is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as it is directed to a judicial exception.
Regarding to claim 2, 3-12, and 14-17:
Claims 2 recites the limitation of “…receiving a command to store the first cryptographic key…” which further elaborates on the limitation of claim 1 of obtaining the first cryptographic key and the second information is merely directed to an insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data for use in the claimed process, as seen in MPEP § 2106.05(g) & MPEP § 2106.05(h). Insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Accordingly, these additional elements do integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites the limitation of “…in response to determining that the first information is not consistent with the second information, rejecting the command …” is merely directed to an mental process, as seen in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). The steps of rejecting a command based on determining if the first information is not consistent with the second information could be performed within the human mind (e.g., human decision making and the act of comparing and contrasting information) or by a human using pen and paper . Accordingly, these additional elements do no not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not improve the functioning of the computer, nor add an inventive concept.
Claim 4 recites the limitation of “…retrieving the first cryptographic key and second information… in response to receiving a command…” which further elaborates on the limitation of claim 1 of obtaining the first cryptographic key and second information is merely directed to an extra solution activity of retrieving data for use in the claimed process, as seen in MPEP § 2106.05(g) & MPEP § 2106.05(h). Insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Accordingly, these additional elements do integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites the limitation of “…in response to determining the first information is not consistent with the second information, rejecting the command…” is merely directed to a mental process, as seen in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). These steps could be performed by the human mind. The steps of rejecting a command based on determining if the first information is not consistent with the second information can be performed by the human mind (e.g., human decision making and the act of comparing and contrasting information) or a human using pen and paper. Accordingly, these additional elements do no not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not improve the functioning of the computer, nor add an inventive concept.
Claim 6 recites the limitation of “…decrypting a second cryptographic key…” is merely directed to a mental process, as seen in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). The steps could be performed by the human mind. A human perform the decryption process using given/retrieved data (such as a cryptographic key) either through a mental process or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not improve the functioning of the cryptographic of the computer, nor add an inventive concept.
Claim 7 recites the limitation of “the first information comprises a first set of configurable properties… the second information comprises a second of configurable properties…the first and second set of configurable properties…” is merely directed to a mental process, as seen in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). These steps could be performed by human such as assembly of information. A human could compile two sets information of configurable properties by using pen and paper or taking a mental note of them. The configurable properties limitation could also be performed by human through simply the act of deleting/erasing or adding/writing of properties via pen and paper or mental notes. Accordingly, these additional elements do no not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not improve the functioning of the computer, nor add an inventive concept.
Claim 8 recites the limitation of “…determining whether the first information is consistent with the second information…” is merely directed to a mental process, as seen in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). These steps could be performed by the human mind. The steps of determining if the first information is not consistent with the second information can be performed by the human mind (e.g., human decision making and the act of comparing and contrasting information) or a human using pen and paper. Accordingly, these additional elements do no not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not improve the functioning of the computer, nor add an inventive concept.
Claim 9 recites the limitation of “…determining whether first information is consistent…” is merely directed to a mental process, as seen in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). These steps could be performed by the human mind. The steps of determining if the first information is not consistent with the second information can be performed by the human mind (e.g., human decision making and the act of comparing and contrasting information) or a human using pen and paper. Accordingly, these additional elements do no not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not improve the functioning of the computer, nor add an inventive concept.
Claim 10 recites the limitation of “…wherein the first set of configurable properties comprises a first configurable property having a first value…determining the first information is consistent in response to determining that the first value is equal to greater than the second value…” is merely directed to a mental process, as seen in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). These steps could be performed by human. A human could compile two sets information of configurable properties by using pen and paper or taking a mental note of them. The configurable properties having a first and second value limitation could also be performed by human through simply the act of adding/writing of properties via pen and paper or mental notes. The step of determining the first value is equal to greater than the second value could be performed by the human mind or human using pen and paper (e.g., the act of comparing values) . Accordingly, these additional elements do no not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not improve the functioning of the computer, nor add an inventive concept.
Claim 11 recites the limitation of “…receiving first cryptographic key …” elaborating on the limitation of claim 1 of obtaining the first cryptographic key and second information is merely directed to an extra solution activity of retrieving data for use in the claimed process, as seen in MPEP § 2106.05(g) & MPEP § 2106.05(h). Insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Accordingly, these additional elements do integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 12 recites the limitation of “...receiving cryptographic signature…” elaborating on the limitation of claim 1 of obtaining the first cryptographic key and second information is merely directed to an extra solution activity of retrieving data for use in the claimed process, as seen in MPEP § 2106.05(g) & MPEP § 2106.05(h). Insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Accordingly, these additional elements do integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites the limitation of “the first information comprises a first set properties… the first and second set of configurable properties each comprise a compliance mode…” is merely directed to an extra solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, as seen in MPEP § 2106.05(g) & MPEP § 2106.05(h). Insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Accordingly, these additional elements do integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites the limitation of “… the first information comprises of first set of configurable properties… the first and second set of configurable properties each comprise an operation….” is merely directed to an extra solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, as seen in MPEP § 2106.05(g) & MPEP § 2106.05(h). Insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Accordingly, these additional elements do integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 16 recites the limitation of “…the first information comprises a first set of configurable properties…the first and second set of configurable properties each comprise of Input/Output settings…” is merely directed to an extra solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, as seen in MPEP § 2106.05(g) & MPEP § 2106.05(h). Insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Accordingly, these additional elements do integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 17 is directed to a computer-readable medium that performs the method steps of claim 1. The claim is rejected under abstract idea for the same reason discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 13 recites a method which appears to be a ‘process’ and one of the four statutory subject matter categories of invention (Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test).
However, the claim appears to not qualify for a streamlined analysis thus a full eligibility and thus a fully eligibility analysis is necessary (Step 2A and Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test).
In Step 2A, Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claims. The claim recites the steps of:
“…generating a first cryptographic and information specifying a device configuration for which of the use of first cryptographic key is permitted…”
“…store the first cryptographic key in a device…”
“…sending the command to a device…”
The steps performing amount to an abstract idea which falls under a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1, of Subject Matter Eligibility). Abstract ideas falls in the category. The claim recites the limitation of “…generating a first cryptographic key and information specifying a device configuration for which use of the first cryptographic key is permitted… generating a command to store the first cryptographic key… send the command to the device….” is merely directed to an mental process, as seen in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). These steps could be performed by a human. The steps of generating information of access, generating a command to store data, and sending a command can be performed by the human mind or a human using pen and paper. For example, the courts found that the claim “related to system to monitor access to protected health information in which a rule is created, an audit log is compared with the rule, and a notification is provided if rule is fulfilled”, was directed to an abstract idea of detecting misuse in a computer environment based on analysis log files, while also finding that the claims simply automated a process that was commonly performed without computers in the past. Overall the claim is directed to merely permitting use of a key based on stored information of a device. Furthermore, the court found that the claims simply related to the collection and analysis of data is an abstract idea in which there is not inventive concept, and there are no details in the claim that describe an improvement to existing computer technology, Fairwarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys, Inc., No. 15-1985 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In Step 2A, Prong Two, examiner determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application to disqualify abstract as a judicial exception. However, the judicial exception in claim 1 is not integrated into practical because the generically recited elements:
“…a first cryptographic key…”
“…wherein the command comprises the cryptographic key in an encrypted form…”
do not add meaningful limitation to an abstract idea because they do not add a meaningful limitation to an abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The implementation of sending and storing information enables human decision making without using the cryptographic key and encryption in any meaningful to improve the functioning of a computer or another technology without reference to what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer function that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Thus, the analysis concludes is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as it is directed to a judicial exception.
Claim 18 recites a device which appears to be a ‘machine’ and one of the four statutory subject matter categories of invention (Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test).
However, the claim appears to not qualify for a streamlined analysis thus a full eligibility and thus a fully eligibility analysis is necessary (Step 2A and Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test).
In Step 2A, Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claims. The claim recites the steps of:
“…store first information specifying the configuration of the device…”
“…obtain a first cryptographic key and second information specifying a device configuration…”
“…compare second information with the first information to determine whether the first information is consistent with the second information…”
“… in response to determining the first information is consistent with the second information, perform a first operation using the first cryptographic key on the device.”
The steps performing amount to an abstract idea which falls under a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1, of Subject Matter Eligibility). Abstract ideas falls in the category. The abstract idea falls in the categories of a mental process, for evaluation, judgments, and opinions, and mathematical concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) & MPEP 2106.06) such as comparing the second information with the first information to determine whether first information is consistent with the second information. For example, the courts found that the claim “related to system to monitor access to protected health information in which a rule is created, an audit log is compared with the rule, and a notification is provided if rule is fulfilled”, was directed to an abstract idea of detecting misuse in a computer environment based on analysis log files, while also finding that the claims simply automated a process that was commonly performed without computers in the past. Furthermore, the court found that the claims simply related to the collection and analysis of data is an abstract idea in which there is not inventive concept, and there are no details in the claim that describe an improvement to existing computer technology, Fairwarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys, Inc., No. 15-1985 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In Step 2A, Prong Two, examiner determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application to disqualify abstract as a judicial exception. However, the judicial exception in claim 1 is not integrated into practical because the generically recited elements:
a persistent memory
one or more processors
a first cryptographic key
do not add meaningful limitation to an abstract idea because they do not add a meaningful limitation to an abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The implementation of comparing information enabling human decision making without using the cryptographic key in any meaningful to improve the functioning of a computer or another technology without reference to what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer function that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Thus, the analysis concludes is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as it is directed to a judicial exception.
Claim 17 is further rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed to a non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 17 recites the element of a computer-readable medium. However, the computer-readable medium is not limited to a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Additionally the applicant’s specification (Page 8, Line 5) does not limit the computer-readable medium to include only a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakrabarti et al. (US Pat No. 11790092-B1 ) in view of Dobbelaere et al. (US PGPub No. 20230418953-A1).
With respect to claim 1, Chakrabarti teaches a computer-implemented method (¶0043: Some or all operations of the methods described herein, and/or substantially equivalent operations, can be performed by execution of computer-readable instructions included on a computer-storage media) for controlling use of a first cryptographic key in a device, (¶0019-0020: As seen in Figure 1, the service provider 102 can use its computing hardware resources to provide customers with use of cryptoprocessors, such as one or more hardware security modules (HSMs) 112 as a service. An HSM is hardware device (e.g., hardware appliance) that is dedicated to protect information (e.g., cryptographic keys) from unauthorized disclosure to perform operations using protected information ) wherein the device stores first information specifying the configuration of the device, (¶0026-0029: In some implementations, communicating with the HSM 112 is facilitated by a server application 116 that is hosted by the service provider network 106. The server application 116 can have access to the library of the HSM 112. The library can contain functions and associated computer-executable that when executed the HSM 112 to perform cryptographic functions (first information specifying configurations of the device).).
the method comprising: obtaining the first cryptographic key and second information specifying a device configuration for which use of the first cryptographic key is permitted; (¶0045-0046: As seen in Figure 3, at 302, a request to perform a cryptographic operation is obtained. The action component may identify the cryptographic operation associated with the request at 302. The resource component can identify a cryptographic resource of the cryptoprocessor. The cryptographic resource can be a cryptographic item, such as a cryptographic key. The effect component of the policy (second information specifying a device configuration for which use of cryptographic key is permitted) may indicate a permission for the cryptographic operation identified by the action component. );
Chakrabarti does not disclose:
comparing the second information with the first information to determine whether the first information is consistent with the second information; and
in response to determining that the first information is consistent with the second information, performing a first operation using the first cryptographic key on the device.
However, Dobbelaere teaches a comparing the second information with the first information to determine whether the first information is consistent with the second information; and in response to determining that the first information is consistent with the second information, performing a first operation using the first cryptographic key on the device. (¶0116-0119: For the user request from user 110/device 108, the cryptographic key access request may include data representative of the user token of user 110 (¶0094-0097: User: An individual, group of individuals, or entity that may use the cryptography to request cryptographic operations to be performed according to the cryptographic licenses created by the administrator. For example, the cryptography system may be configured to multi-tenancy user, such as to provide access to and licenses from multiple user devices and software applications. The user access token may be used as a credential by compute service and/or key storage service that the bearer of the token has been authorized to request, according to a corresponding cryptographic license, cryptographic operations and/or access to the cryptographic services provided by compute service and/or key storage service. ) and a compute service token of the compute engine/service 104 (¶0098 defines the compute service token as data permitting a compute service in a high trust environment to perform cryptographic operations on data of a large-scale data set. This data may be in form of a compute service access token, which indicates compute service is a trusted system or a part of a high-trust environment that key storage service may provide cryptographic key/ algorithms to perform said cryptographic operations. ). For example, on receipt of the compute service token 124a, the key storage service 102 compares the compute service token 124 the compute service token 124a with the current compute service token generated for the compute service 104 in the set of compute service tokens 124 (comparing first and second information), to determine whether received compute service token 124a is valid and hence whether the compute service 104 is operating in a high trusted environment for it to be trusted with performing cryptographic operations. If this is not the case, then the key storage service 102 may, in response , deny the compute service 104 and the user 110 access to the corresponding cryptographic keys (thus showing the permitting the use of cryptographic key to perform the operations by showing the denial usage of cryptographic key to perform the operation)) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dobbelaere with regards to comparing and permitting an operation to the method of Chakrabarti in order to prevent unauthorized access (Dobbelaere ¶0002).
With respect to claim 4, the combination Chakrabarti of Dobbelaere teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection claim 1 above), wherein obtaining the first cryptographic key and the second information comprises: retrieving the first cryptographic key and the second information from persistent storage of the device (Dobbelaere ¶0105: The data storage 107 may be configured to store elements of the cryptography system 100 such as cryptographic key(s), cryptographic algorithm(s), cryptographic license(s), and/or other related information such as user tokens 122 and/or compute service tokens 124. In some embodiments, the data storage 106 and/or 107 may comprise one or more storage devices local to the compute engine 104 and/or key storage service 102, respectively, of the cryptography system 100.) in response to receiving a command to use the first cryptographic key in the first operation. (Dobbelaere ¶0117: On receipt of the cryptographic key access request, the key storage service 102 processes the user token 122a corresponding to the user request of user 110/device 108 and the compute service token 124a to determine whether to grant the compute service 104 access to data representative of the cryptographic key associated with the cryptographic operation of the user request from user device 108. The key storage service 102 also determines whether the user 110 has permission to have the cryptographic operation performed on the large-scale dataset by the compute service 104.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dobbelaere with regards to obtaining a first cryptographic key to the method of Chakrabarti in order to prevent unauthorized access (Dobbelaere ¶0002).
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Chakrabarti in view of Dobbelaere teaches the method of claim 4 (see rejection claim 4 above), further comprising: in response to determining that the first information is not consistent with the second information, rejecting the command to use the first cryptographic key in the first operation. (Dobbelaere ¶0119: For example, on receipt of the compute service token 124a, the key storage service 102 compares the compute service token 124a with the current compute service token generated for the compute service 104 in the set of compute service tokens 124, to determine whether the received compute service token 124a is valid and hence whether the compute service 104 is operating in a high trust environment for it to be trusted with performing cryptographic operations. If this is not the case (not consistent) , then the key storage service 102 may, in response, deny the compute service 104 and the user 110 access to the corresponding cryptographic keys.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dobbelaere with regards to the response to determining the first information is not consistent to the method of Chakrabarti in order to prevent unauthorized access (Dobbelaere ¶0002).
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Chakrabarti in view of Dobbelaere teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection claim 1 above), wherein: the first information comprises a first set of configurable properties; (Chakrabarti ¶0026-0030: The server application 116 can have access to a library of the HSM 112. In some implementations, the server application 116 is integrated with the HSM 112, such as within the physical enclosure of the HSM 112. In some implementations, the customer 104 via the client application 114, can initiate cryptoprocessor function supported by the library installed on computer resources of the customer 104. In some implementations, the function is called by an API of the client application 114. The function call may be part of a request 118. The request can include several function calls. );
the second information comprises a second set of configurable properties; and (Chakrabarti ¶0031-0032: The policies 120 can be stored within one or more computing devices of the online service provider 102. Alternatively, the policies 120 can be stored in one or more the HSMs 112. The policies 120 can apply specifically to operations of a single HSM associated with the HSMs 112 or operation of a plurality of HSMs. Some of the policies 120 may apply to all users or a collection of users that make function calls associated with operations provided by at least one of the HSMs 112. );
wherein: the first and second set of configurable properties each comprise at least one of: an enabled functionality of the device, an identity of a cryptographic key, an operation that can be performed to the master key, a compliance mode of the device, enabled/disabled cryptographic algorithms, Input/Output settings of the device, and attributes of the device. (Chakrabarti ¶0032: A response 122 can be conveyed to the customer 104 based on the request 118. The response 122 can include a confirmation that the function call of the request 118 was processed by the HSM 112. Furthermore, the response 122 may include one or more items, such as encrypted data, generated by the HSM 112 based on execution of at least one cryptographic operation linked to the function call of the request 118. The confirmation that the function call of the request 118 was processed by the HSM 112 can be generated by the provider 102, via the server application 116 or the HSM 112, in response to evaluating a policy 120 linked to the customer 104 or the HSM 112. Specifically, when the policy 120 specifies that the cryptographic operation linked to the function call of the request 118 (enabled functionality of the device) is permitted or allowed, the confirmation can be generated and incorporated with the response 122 conveyed to the customer 104. );
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Chakrabarti in view of Dobbelaere teaches the method of claim 7 (see rejection claim 7 above), wherein: determining whether the first information is consistent with the second information comprises: determining that the first information is consistent with the second information in response to determining that the first set of configurable properties consists of the second set of configurable properties. (Chakrabarti ¶0033: Specifically, when the policy 120 specifies that the cryptographic operation linked to the function call of the request 118 is permitted or allowed, the confirmation can be generated and incorporated with the response 122 conveyed to the customer 104. Alternatively, when the policy 120 specifies that the cryptographic operation linked to the function call of the request 118 is impermissible or denied, the response 122 may convey the denial to the customer 104.);
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Chakrabarti in view of Dobbelaere teaches the method of claim 7 (see rejection claim 7 above), wherein: determining whether the first information is consistent with the second information comprises: determining that the first information is consistent with the second information in response to determining that the first set of configurable properties comprises the second set of configurable properties. (Chakrabarti ¶0033-0039: Each policy included in the set of policies 220 includes at least one statement 204 (determining the first set of configurable properties comprises the second set of configurable properties) . The statement 204, in some implementations, includes an action component 206, a resource component 208, and an effect component 210. The action component 206 can identify an operation, such as a cryptographic operation , that can be executed by the HSM 112. In the illustrated example, the action component 206 identifies the wrap operation that can be performed by the HSM 112. However, as should be appreciated, the action component 206 can identify any operation capable of being performed by a cryptoprocessor.);
With respect to claim 17, the combination of Chakrabarti in view of Dobbelaere teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection claim 1 above), computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to carry out the computer-implemented method of claim 1. (Chakrabarti ¶0066: In various embodiments described throughout this disclosure, computing resources are configured to perform tasks (e.g., generate data, process data, store data, route messages, transmit data, submit requests, process requests) by loading computer-readable executable instructions into memory that, as a result of execution by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to execute instructions to perform tasks. ).
With respect to claim 18, Chakrabarti teaches device comprising: one or more processors, the one or more processors configured to: (¶0015: In various embodiments described throughout this disclosure, computing resources are configured to perform tasks (e.g., generate data, process data, store data, route messages, transmit data, submit requests, process requests) by loading computer-readable executable instructions into memory that, as a result of execution by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to execute instructions to perform tasks.) obtain a first cryptographic key and second information specifying a device configuration (¶0019-0020: As seen in Figure 1, the service provider 102 can use its computing hardware resources to provide customers with use of cryptoprocessors, such as one or more hardware security modules (HSMs) 112 as a service. An HSM is hardware device (e.g., hardware appliance) that is dedicated to protect information (e.g., cryptographic keys) from unauthorized disclosure to perform operations using protected information ) for which use of the first cryptographic key is permitted; (¶0026-0029: In some implementations, communicating with the HSM 112 is facilitated by a server application 116 that is hosted by the service provider network 106. The server application 116 can have access to the library of the HSM 112. The library can contain functions and associated computer-executable that when executed the HSM 112 to perform cryptographic functions (first information specifying configurations of the device).).
Chakrabarti does not disclose:
a persistent memory
compare the second information with the first information to determine whether the first information is consistent with the second information; and
in response to determining that the first information is consistent with the second information, perform a first operation using the first cryptographic key on the device.
Chakrabarti does disclose storing of the first information specifying the configuration of the device, but the prior art does not explicitly disclose a persistent memory. However, Dobbelaere teaches a persistent memory configured to store first information specifying the configuration of the device; and (¶0105: The data storage 107 may be configured to store elements of the cryptography system 100 such as cryptographic key(s), cryptographic algorithm(s), cryptographic license(s), and/or other related information such as user tokens 122 and/or compute service tokens 124. In some embodiments, the data storage 106 and/or 107 may comprise one or more storage devices local to the compute engine 104 and/or key storage service 102, respectively, of the cryptography system 100.);
compare the second information with the first information to determine whether the first information is consistent with the second information; and in response to determining that the first information is consistent with the second information, performing a first operation using the first cryptographic key on the device. (¶0116-0119: For the user request from user 110/device 108, the cryptographic key access request may include data representative of the user token of user 110 (¶0094-0097: User: An individual, group of individuals, or entity that may use the cryptography to request cryptographic operations to be performed according to the cryptographic licenses created by the administrator. For example, the cryptography system may be configured to multi-tenancy user, such as to provide access to and licenses from multiple user devices and software applications. The user access token may be used as a credential by compute service and/or key storage service that the bearer of the token has been authorized to request, according to a corresponding cryptographic license, cryptographic operations and/or access to the cryptographic services provided by compute service and/or key storage service. ) and a compute service token of the compute engine/service 104 (¶0098 defines the compute service token as data permitting a compute service in a high trust environment to perform cryptographic operations on data of a large-scale data set. This data may be in form of a compute service access token, which indicates compute service is a trusted system or a part of a high-trust environment that key storage service may provide cryptographic key/ algorithms to perform said cryptographic operations. ). For example, on receipt of the compute service token 124a, the key storage service 102 compares the compute service token 124 the compute service token 124a with the current compute service token generated for the compute service 104 in the set of compute service tokens 124 (comparing first and second information), to determine whether received compute service token 124a is valid and hence whether the compute service 104 is operating in a high trusted environment for it to be trusted with performing cryptographic operations. If this is not the case, then the key storage service 102 may, in response , deny the compute service 104 and the user 110 access to the corresponding cryptographic keys (thus showing the permitting the use of cryptographic key to perform the operations by showing the denial usage of cryptographic key to perform the operation)) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dobbelaere with regards to comparing and permitting an operation to the method of Chakrabarti in order to prevent unauthorized access (Dobbelaere ¶0002).
Claims 2, 3, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakrabarti et al. (US Pat No. 11790092-B1 ) in view of Dobbelaere et al. (US PGPub No. 20230418953-A1) and Gupta et al. (US PGPub No. 20210399880-A1).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Chakrabarti in view of Dobbelaere teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection claim 1 above), but does not disclose wherein obtaining the first cryptographic key and the second information comprises: receiving a command to store the first cryptographic key in a persistent storage of the device, wherein the command comprises the first cryptographic key in encrypted form and the second information, wherein the first cryptographic key and the second information are bound together, and wherein performing the first operation comprises storing the first cryptographic key in the persistent storage.
However, Gupta teaches wherein obtaining the first cryptographic key and the second information comprises: receiving a command to store the first cryptographic key in a persistent storage of the device, (¶0042: Accordingly, the generated CMAC may be used as a reference for performing the corresponding unwrapping operation. The IV, wrapped key, wrapped key configuration and CMAC may be stored in the external retention memory (e.g. an SRAM) before the system enters a power-down mode.);
wherein the command comprises the first cryptographic key in encrypted form and the second information, (¶0031: t is noted that wrapping the cryptographic key refers to the process of encrypting the cryptographic key and its properties and adding an authentication code (i.e., an authenticity tag) to the result of the encryption. Similarly, unwrapping the cryptographic key refers to the process of verifying the authentication code and decrypting, upon or after a positive verification result, the encrypted cryptographic key and its properties.);
wherein the first cryptographic key and the second information are bound together, and wherein performing the first operation comprises storing the first cryptographic key in the persistent storage. (¶0045: As seen in Figure 7, the processing unit 732 then performs an unwrapped operation 732 as explained in detail with reference to Figure 6. It is noted that in addition to the protection provided by wrapping the exported cryptographic key, the messages exchanged between the processing unit and the retention memory—which include the wrapped key—may be protected by encrypting them.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gupta with regards to storing the first cryptographic key to the method of Chakrabarti in view of Dobbelaere in order to better security such as integrating tamper-resistant elements (Gupta ¶0002).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Chakrabarti in view of Dobbelaere and Gupta teaches the method of claim 2 (see rejection claim 2 above), further comprising: in response to determining that the first information is not consistent with the second information, rejecting the command to store the first cryptographic key. (Dobbelaere ¶0119: For example, on receipt of the compute service token 124a, the key storage service 102 compares the compute service token 124a with the current compute service token generated for the compute service 104 in the set of compute service tokens 124, to determine whether the received compute service token 124a is valid and hence whether the compute service 104 is operating in a high trust environment for it to be trusted with performing cryptographic operations. If this is not the case (not consistent) , then the key storage service 102 may, in response, deny the compute service 104 and the user 110 access to the corresponding cryptographic keys.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dobbelaere with regards to the response to determining the first information is not consistent to the method of Chakrabarti in view of Gupta in order to prevent unauthorized access (Dobbelaere ¶0002).
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Chakrabarti of Dobbelaere teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection claim 1 above), but does not disclose wherein the first operation comprises decrypting a second cryptographic key using the first cryptographic key or generating a second cryptographic key using the first cryptographic key.
However, Gupta teaches wherein the first operation comprises decrypting a second cryptographic key using the first cryptographic key or generating a second cryptographic key using the first cryptographic key. ( ¶0031: Furthermore, in one or more embodiments, the second set of predefined operations includes at least one of the following operations: using the cryptographic key to generate another cryptographic key, using the cryptographic key to wrap another cryptographic key, and using the cryptographic key to perform a predefined cryptographic function, wherein the cryptographic function includes encrypting and/or decrypting data with said cryptographic key. );
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gupta with regards to generating cryptographic key using the first cryptographic key to the method of Chakrabarti in view of Dobbelaere in order to better security such as integrating tamper-resistant elements (Gupta ¶0002).
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Chakrabarti in view of Dobbelaere teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection claim 1 above), but does not disclose wherein obtaining the first cryptographic key and second information comprises receiving the first cryptographic key and the second information combined and in encrypted form.
However, Gupta teaches wherein obtaining the first cryptographic key and second information comprises receiving the first cryptographic key and the second information combined and in encrypted form. (Gupta ¶0044: As seen in Figure 6, the AES decryptions 618, 620 result in a unique unwrapped key 624 and unwrapped key configuration data 626, respectively. The unique unwrapped key 624 can then be used by the secure component (e.g. a CPU) which has retrieved the wrapped key and its wrapped configuration, to perform operations. In other words, key unwrapping may involve the following steps. The wrapped key, IV and wrapped key configuration data are retrieved from an external, non-secure memory.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gupta with regards to obtaining the first cryptographic key to the method of Chakrabarti in view Dobbelaere in order to better security such as integrating tamper-resistant elements (Gupta ¶0002).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakrabarti et al. (US Pat No. 11790092-B1) in view of Dobbelaere et al. (US PGPub No. 20230418953-A1 ) and Pang et al. (US PGPub No. 20180241570-A1).
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Chakrabarti in view of Dobbelaere teaches the method of claim 9 (see rejection claim 9 above), but does not disclose wherein the first set of configurable properties comprises a first configurable property having a first value, the second set of configurable properties comprises the first configurable property having a second value and wherein determining whether the first information is consistent with the second information comprises :determining that the first information is consistent with the second information in response to determining that first value is equal to or greater than the second value.
However, Pang teaches wherein the first set of configurable properties comprises a first configurable property having a first value, the second set of configurable properties comprises the first configurable property having a second value and (¶0257: Specifically, the first hash value is a hash value generated by the configuration device by performing the hash operation on at least the second type information. The first terminal can decrypt the second signature information by using the public key for signature, to obtain the first hash value.);
wherein determining whether the first information is consistent with the second information comprises: determining that the first information is consistent with the second information in response to determining that first value is equal to or greater than the second value. (¶0258: 206: The first terminal determines whether the first hash value is equal to the second hash value, that is, the first terminal determines whether the second signature information matches the second type information.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Pang with regarding the first and second information to the method of Chakrabarti in view of Dobbelaere in order to increase security by reducing risk of fraudulence (Pang ¶0004).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakrabarti et al. (US Pat No. 11790092-B1 ) in view of Dobbelaere et al. (US PGPub No. 20230418953-A1 ), Gupta et al. (US PGPub No. 20210399880-A1), and Collinson et al. (US PG Pub No. 20210105276-A1).
With respect to claim 12, the combination of Chakrabarti in view of Dobbelaere and Gupta teaches the method of claim 11 (see rejection claim 11 above), but does not disclose wherein obtaining the first cryptographic key and second information comprises receiving cryptographic signature information.
However, Collinson teaches wherein obtaining the first cryptographic key and second information comprises receiving cryptographic signature information. (¶0007-0010:The operations include receiving a cryptographic operation request including a cryptographic key and at least one authorization token, determining whether an access control list (ACL) associated with the cryptographic key (first cryptographic key and second information) of the cryptographic operation request is authorized to govern access to the cryptographic key, and validating the at least one authorization token. In some examples, the corresponding authorization token includes data identifying the HSM and a cryptographic signature of the HSM (receiving cryptographic signature information) . The corresponding authorization token may define at least one of the authorization time period or a limit number limiting a number of usage of the corresponding authorization token.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Collinson of obtaining the first cryptographic key and second information comprises receiving cryptographic signature information to the method of Chakrabarti in view of Dobbelaere and Gupta in order to allow for secure access and protect information (Collinson ¶0003).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US PGPub No. 20210399880-A1) in view of Liu et al. (US PGPub No. 20220377055-A1 ) and Chakrabarti et al. (US Pat No.11790092-B1) .
With respect to claim 13, Gupta teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising: generating a first cryptographic key and information specifying a device configuration for which use of the first cryptographic key is permitted; (Abstract: In accordance with a first aspect of the present disclosure, a method is conceived for setting permissions for cryptographic keys in a cryptographic processing system, comprising: generating at least one cryptographic key to be protected; assigning one or more configurable properties to said cryptographic key;)
wherein the command comprises the first cryptographic key in encrypted form, and (¶0031: It is noted that wrapping the cryptographic key refers to the process of encrypting the cryptographic key and its properties and adding an authentication code (i.e., an authenticity tag) to the result of the encryption. Similarly, unwrapping the cryptographic key refers to the process of verifying the authentication code and decrypting, upon or after a positive verification result, the encrypted cryptographic key and its properties.);
wherein the first cryptographic key and the information are bound together; and sending the command to a device. (¶0045: As seen in Figure 7, the processing unit 732 then performs an unwrapped operation 732 as explained in detail with reference to Figure 6. It is noted that in addition to the protection provided by wrapping the exported cryptographic key, the messages exchanged between the processing unit and the retention memory—which include the wrapped key—may be protected by encrypting them.).
Gupta does disclose the subject above with regards generating a cryptographic key with properties but the prior art does not disclose:
generating a command to store the first cryptographic key in a device,
However, Liu teaches generating a command to store the first cryptographic key in a device, (¶0017-0018: The secure memory device can require a command to be signed using cryptographic key before the command is executed to access a secure memory region. The secure memory device can be configured with commands to store, generate, and use cryptographic keys on behalf of a host system);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Liu with regards to generating a command to store the first cryptographic key in a device to the method of Gupta in order to eliminate or reduce the usage of the cryptographic key outside the device and reduce security risk (Liu ¶0012)
Gupta in view of Liu does not disclose:
the information specifying the device configuration, and
However, Chakrabarti teaches the information specifying the device configuration, and
(¶0026-0029: In some implementations, communicating with the HSM 112 is facilitated by a server application 116 that is hosted by the service provider network 106. The server application 116 can have access to the library of the HSM 112. The library can contain functions and associated computer-executable that when executed the HSM 112 to perform cryptographic functions (first information specifying configurations of the device).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chakrabarti with regards to information specifying the device configuration to the method of Gupta in view of Liu in order to reduce security risks and the requisite of use of computer resources stemming from unauthorized use (Chakrabarti ¶0016).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakrabarti et al. (US Pat No.11790092-B1) in view of Dobbelaere et al. (US PGPub No. 20230418953-A1 ) and Andoni et al. (US PGPub No. 20210306160-A1).
With respect to claim 14, Chakrabarti teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection claim 1 above), wherein: the first information comprises a first set of configurable properties; (Chakrabarti ¶0026-0030: The server application 116 can have access to a library of the HSM 112. In some implementations, the server application 116 is integrated with the HSM 112, such as within the physical enclosure of the HSM 112. In some implementations, the customer 104 via the client application 114, can initiate cryptoprocessor function supported by the library installed on computer resources of the customer 104. In some implementations, the function is called by an API of the client application 114. The function call may be part of a request 118. The request can include several function calls. );
the second information comprises a second set of configurable properties; and (Chakrabarti ¶0031-0032: The policies 120 can be stored within one or more computing devices of the online service provider 102. Alternatively, the policies 120 can be stored in one or more the HSMs 112. The policies 120 can apply specifically to operations of a single HSM associated with the HSMs 112 or operation of a plurality of HSMs. Some of the policies 120 may apply to all users or a collection of users that make function calls associated with operations provided by at least one of the HSMs 112. );
Chakrabarti does not disclose:
wherein: the first and second set of configurable properties each comprise a compliance mode of the device.
However, Andoni teaches wherein: the first information comprises a first set of configurable properties; the second information comprises a second set of configurable properties; and wherein: the first and second set of configurable properties each comprise a compliance mode of the device. (¶0070: As seen in Figure 2, the communication device 202 may be further configured for receiving a plurality of potential recipient certificates from the sender device. Further, the sender device may include the plurality of potential recipient certificates. Further, the processing device 206 may be further configured for determining compliance of a plurality of potential recipient certificates with the predefined policy definition. Further, the processing device 206 may be further configured for identifying the at least one recipient certificate from the plurality of potential recipient certificates based on the determining.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Andoni with regards to obtaining the first cryptographic key to the method of Chakrabarti in view of Dobbelaere in order to secure data (Andoni ¶0002-0004).
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakrabarti et al. (US Pat No. 11790092-B1 ) in view of Dobbelaere et al. (US PGPub No. 20230418953-A1) and Roth et al. (US Pat No. 9853979-B1).
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Chakrabarti in view of Dobbelaere teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection claim 1 above), wherein: the first information comprises a first set of configurable properties; (Chakrabarti ¶0026-0030: The server application 116 can have access to a library of the HSM 112. In some implementations, the server application 116 is integrated with the HSM 112, such as within the physical enclosure of the HSM 112. In some implementations, the customer 104 via the client application 114, can initiate cryptoprocessor function supported by the library installed on computer resources of the customer 104. In some implementations, the function is called by an API of the client application 114. The function call may be part of a request 118. The request can include several function calls. );
the second information comprises a second set of configurable properties; and (Chakrabarti ¶0031-0032: The policies 120 can be stored within one or more computing devices of the online service provider 102. Alternatively, the policies 120 can be stored in one or more the HSMs 112. The policies 120 can apply specifically to operations of a single HSM associated with the HSMs 112 or operation of a plurality of HSMs. Some of the policies 120 may apply to all users or a collection of users that make function calls associated with operations provided by at least one of the HSMs 112. );
Chakrabarti in view of Dobbelaere does not disclose:
wherein: the first and second set of configurable properties each comprise an operation that can be performed to the master key.
However, Roth teaches wherein: the first and second set of configurable properties each comprise an operation that can be performed to the master key. (¶0065: Figure 6 illustrative example of an environment 600 and the flow of information illustrating how plaintext may be obtained. In one example configuration, the data service can send the cryptographic service an API call that includes the encrypted envelope key (or an identifier for the encrypted envelope key) authentication proof, and an identifier of the master key used to encrypt the envelope key to the cryptographic service. );
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Roth with regarding the master key to the method of Chakrabarti in view of Dobbelaere in order to ensure secure access and prevent unauthorized access (e.g., illegal, tortious and/or otherwise disallowed such as a. compromise of authorization credentials) (Roth ¶0036).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakrabarti et al. (US Pat No.11790092-B1) in view of Dobbelaere et al. (US PGPub No. 20230418953-A1 ) and Britt et al. (US-20170168777-A1).
With respect to claim 16, the combination of Chakrabarti in view of Dobbelaere teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection claim 1 above), wherein: the first information comprises a first set of configurable properties; (Chakrabarti ¶0026-0030: The server application 116 can have access to a library of the HSM 112. In some implementations, the server application 116 is integrated with the HSM 112, such as within the physical enclosure of the HSM 112. In some implementations, the customer 104 via the client application 114, can initiate cryptoprocessor function supported by the library installed on computer resources of the customer 104. In some implementations, the function is called by an API of the client application 114. The function call may be part of a request 118. The request can include several function calls. );
the second information comprises a second set of configurable properties; and(Chakrabarti ¶0031-0032: The policies 120 can be stored within one or more computing devices of the online service provider 102. Alternatively, the policies 120 can be stored in one or more the HSMs 112. The policies 120 can apply specifically to operations of a single HSM associated with the HSMs 112 or operation of a plurality of HSMs. Some of the policies 120 may apply to all users or a collection of users that make function calls associated with operations provided by at least one of the HSMs 112. );
Chakrabarti does not disclose:
wherein: the first and second set of configurable properties each comprise Input/Output settings of the device.
However, Britt teaches wherein: the first information comprises a first set of configurable properties; the second information comprises a second set of configurable properties; and wherein: the first and second set of configurable properties each comprise Input/Output settings of the device. (¶0240: In one embodiment, once the developer has specified the particular I/O functions to be performed by an IoT device via the development application 2720, an IoT device engine 2730 uses the configuration data provided from the development application to generate an IoT device profile 2740, specifying the configuration parameters for the secure communication module 2402.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Britt with regarding the first and second information to the method of Chakrabarti in view of Dobbelaere in order to establish scandalization (Britt ¶0005).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYLOR P VU whose telephone number is (703)756-1218. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI (7:30 - 5:00).
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at (571) 270-5143. 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.
/T.P.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2437
/ALI S ABYANEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights