DETAILED ACTION
This communication responsive to the Application No. 18/866,949 filed on November 18, 2024. A preliminary amendment was filed on 11/18/2024 in which claims 2-5, 7, 12-14, 16, 18, 20, 25, 28-30, 33, 35-36 have been canceled, and claims 6, 8-9, 11, 15, 17, 19, 21-24, 26-27, 31-32, 34, and 37-38 have been amended. Claims 1, 6, 8-11, 15, 17, 19, 21-24, 26-27, 31-32, 34 and 37-38 are pending and are directed towards Time-Limited Key Derivation.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/18/2024, 02/07/2025 and 06/01/2026 were Acknowledge. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “254” in FIG. 2C has been used to designate both “Random Number Generator” and “Overflow Monitoring Module”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an input interface configured to…, a memory element that is configured to…, a counter configured to…, a comparator configured to…” in claim 22.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 8-11, 15, 17, 19, 21-24, 26-27, 31-32, 34 and 37-38 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.
Claims 1, 15 and 22 recite the limitation “generating a (second) comparison result…” which is vague and not clear. it is not understood what is meant by “comparison result” or how this result is used to generate a key in following limitation.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the control value is a future counter value representing a value that the counter will reach at the future time” which is vague and not clear as the independent claim stated that the control value indicating a future time.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the control value specifies a counter value that, when reached by the counter, disallows further generation of the key based on the key identifier and the control value” which is vague and not clear. it is not understood to which counter this limitation is referring.
Claims 19 and 32 recite the limitation “determining a vault context value based on the comparison result, wherein the comparison result is used to select the vault context value from among a vault countervalue and an input vault context value” which is vague and not clear. it is not understood how the comparison result is used to select the vault context, or how is it used in the key generation in following limitation.
Claims 21 and 34 recite the limitation “generating the key involves comprises applying a key derivation function to a set of values comprising the key identifier, the control value, the comparison result, the stored random number, and the mode selection value” which is vague and not clear. it is not understood how a mode selection value is a parameter in key derivation function to generate a key.
Claim 38 recites the limitation “a second counter that is configured to alter its stored value in response to the generated key being read from the hardware module” which is vague and not clear. it is not understood the generated key is read from the hardware module, or how is the alteration process is done.
Claims 26 and 27 recite the limitation “determine whether the counter value from the counter has a predetermined relationship with respect to the control value” which is vague and not clear, it is not understood what is meant by “a predetermined relationship” or the what is the nature of this relationship.
6, 8-10, 15, 17, 23-24, 32 and 37 rejected by dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A. Donlan et al. US 11,240,023 B1 directed to key management for expiring ciphertexts.
B. Walmsley US 2009/0319802 A1 directed to key generation in an integrated circuit.
C. Roth et al. US 10,322,977 B1 directed to secure management of information using a security module.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALID M ALMAGHAYREH whose telephone number is (571)272-0179. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8AM-5PM EST & Friday variable.
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, RUPAL DHARIA can be reached at (571)272-3880. 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.
Respectfully submitted
/KHALID M ALMAGHAYREH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights