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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-34 are canceled. Claims 35-54 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement PTO-1449
The Information Disclosure Statement submitted by applicant on 11-22-2024 has been considered. Please see attached PTO-1449.
Claim Objections
Claims 37, 46 , 49 and 54 are objected to for the following informalities:
Claims 37 and 49 recites “and/or”, it is suggested that the slash be removed..
Claim 46 is objected to as being in improper form because it depends on multiple claims. Claim 46 is presented as dependent on claim 45; however, it also recites “…the method according to any preceding claim…”, thereby improperly creating multiple dependencies. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 54 is objected to for not having proper status identifier. Claim is newly added but is not identified as a new claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 35, 47 and 54 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 regards as the invention.
Claim recites: “…transmitting…a request, based on one of the one or more key IDs, to establish a secure connection between the client device and the proxy server…”. However, claim does not recite a step for establishing a secure connection between the client device and the proxy server.
Independent claims 47 and 54 include similar limitations and are rejected as being indefinite for the same reason.
Dependent claims 36-46 and 47-53 are rejected as being indefinite for being dependent of the rejected independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
835 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 35-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims when analyzed under 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, are directed to abstract idea. Claim 35 for example, recites a method and, therefore, is a process. The claim recites the limitation of “…agreeing between client device and a broker device, one or more common encryption keys…agreeing between the client device and the broker device a key ID…storing …respective copies of the encryption keys and the key IDs…transmitting…a request…transmitting…a request for an encryption key…verifying that the key ID…corresponds to …common encryption keys…and after successful verification …receiving…the corresponding common encryption key”. These limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation are directed performance of the limitation in a human mind or by human. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in human mind or by human. For example, the claim encompasses agreeing between two people encryption keys and key ID corresponding to the encryption key, requesting communication, requesting for encryption key by a third person, verifying the ID and after successful verification receiving by the third person the corresponding common key. Thus, the claim recites a mental process when analyzed under step 2A prong 1.
Claim is further analyzed in step 2A prong 2, to evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. However, each of the remaining limitation (“client device”, “broker device” , “proxy server”) appears to be generic computer functions which do not constitute meaningful limitations that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The combination of these additional element is no more than generic computer functions. Thus, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim is additionally analyzed under Step 2B to evaluates whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. When claims evaluated under step 2B, it is no more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication anything other than a generic computer component. The mere “…agreeing between client device and a broker device, one or more common encryption keys…agreeing between the client device and the broker device a key ID…storing …respective copies of the encryption keys and the key IDs…transmitting…a request… transmitting…a request for an encryption key…verifying that the key ID…corresponds to …common encryption keys…and after successful verification…receiving…the corresponding common encryption key” is a well-understood, routing and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here.
Independent claims 47 and 54 include limitations similar to the limitations of claim 1 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 35.
Claim 36 recites, establishing a client communication channel between the client device and the proxy server for transmitting the request from the client device to the proxy server therethrough, which is considered extra significant activity. This activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 37 recites, establishing a broker communication channel between the broker device and the proxy server for transmitting the request from the proxy server to the broker device and/or the corresponding common encryption key therethrough, which is considered extra significant activity. This activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 38 recites, wherein the broker communication channel comprises a shared memory, which is considered extra significant activity. This activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 39 recites, storing, by the broker device, the one or more common encryption keys in the shared memory, which is considered extra significant activity. This activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Claim further recites, wherein transmitting the request for the encryption key from the proxy server to the broker device comprises: attempting to read, at the proxy server from the shared memory, an encryption key, wherein if said encryption key is one of the one or more common encryption keys, the attempting to read the encryption key is successful, which could be performed by a human. Claim does not recite additional element that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 40 recites, wherein the broker communication channel includes one or more pipes, which is considered extra significant activity. This activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 41 recites, wherein the broker communication channel includes a database, which is considered extra significant activity. This activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 42 recites, wherein the broker communication channel includes a relational database management system that comprises the database, which is considered extra significant activity. This activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 43 recites, wherein the database comprises a cache or distributed cache, which is considered extra significant activity. This activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Claim 44 recites, storing, by the broker device, the one or more key IDs and the one or more encryption keys in the database, which is considered extra significant activity. This activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim further recites, wherein transmitting the request for the encryption key, from the proxy server, includes querying the database with the request based on one of the one or more key IDs; and wherein receiving the corresponding common encryption key at the proxy server includes, after successful verification that the key ID upon which the request for the encryption key is based corresponds to the common encryption key, retrieving, by the proxy server, the common encryption key from the database, which could be performed by human. Claim does not recite additional element that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 45 recites, wherein the data stored in the database is encrypted with a key-encryption key, the key-encryption key being known to the proxy server and the broker device, which is considered extra significant activity. This activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 46 recites, wherein the proxy server is connected via one or more further broker communication channels to one or more further respective broker devices, and wherein the method according to any preceding claim is operable to distribute an encryption key to the proxy server from any of the one or more further broker devices, which is considered extra significant activity. This activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 48-53 include limitations similar to the limitations of claims 36-46, and directed to abstract idea for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 35-37, 47 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US Patent No. 11,502,827), hereinafter Miller in view of Skuratovich et al. (US Patent/ Publication No.2017/0163607), hereinafter Skuratovich.
As per claim 35, Miller discloses a method for distributing an encryption key to a proxy server configured to operate as a proxy for a third-party, the method comprising: storing, at the client device and at the broker device, respective copies of the encryption keys and the key IDs (column 4, lines 25-28, “if cryptographic device 140 stores multiple keys, then the cryptographic request may also include a key ID that uniquely identifies one of the keys”, and column 17, lines 20-27, the request from the secure enclave of the client device includes a key names, which implies the storage of the key name on the client device;
transmitting, from the client device to the proxy server, a request, based on one of the one or more key IDs, to establish a secure connection between the client device and the proxy server (column 17, lines 20-27, “a proxy server receives, from a secure enclave on a client device, a request for a cryptographic key …The request includes a key name or identifier that identifies a cryptographic key); transmitting, from the proxy server to the broker device, a request for an encryption key, the request being based on the key ID that is associated with the request transmitted from the client device to the broker device (column 17, lines, 42-40, the proxy determines the name or identifier is on the list of the exportable keys and forwards the request to the cryptographic device); verifying that the key ID upon which the request for the encryption key is based corresponds to one of the one or more common encryption keys; and after successful verification that the key ID upon which the request for the encryption key is based corresponds to one of the one or more common encryption keys, receiving, at the proxy server, the corresponding common encryption key (column 17, lines, 42-49, the proxy determines the name or identifier is on the list of the exportable keys and forwards the request to the cryptographic device” and “the proxy server receives the encrypted cryptographic key (wrapped key) and sends the encrypted cryptographic key to the secure enclave of the client device”).
Miller does not explicitly disclose, agreeing, between a client device and a broker device, one or more common encryption keys using a third party service; and agreeing, between the client device and the broker device, a key ID corresponding to each of the one or more common encryption keys.
However, in an analogous art, Skuratovich discloses, negotiate a session key data that includes a session key and identifier of the session key (paragraph [0082]-[0084]), which corresponds to the limitation of agreeing, between a client device and a broker device, one or more common encryption keys using a third party service; agreeing, between the client device and the broker device, a key ID corresponding to each of the one or more common encryption 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 Miller with Skuratovich. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, in order to achieve the predictable result of generating encrypted messages to be securely communicated between different entities.
As per claim 47, Miller discloses a computer-implemented method operable by a proxy server configured to operate as a proxy for a third-party, for distributing an encryption key to the proxy server, the method comprising: receiving, from a client device, a request to establish a secure connection between the client device and the proxy server, based on a key ID, wherein the key ID corresponds to a common encryption key (column 17, lines 20-27, “a proxy server receives, from a secure enclave on a client device, a request for a cryptographic key …The request includes a key name or identifier that identifies a cryptographic key”), wherein respective copies of the encryption key and the key ID are stored at the client device and at the broker device (column 4, lines 25-28, “if cryptographic device 140 stores multiple keys, then the cryptographic request may also include a key ID that uniquely identifies one of the keys”, and column 17, lines 20-27, the request from the secure enclave of the client device includes a key names, which implies the storage of the key name on the client device); transmitting, to the broker device, a request for an encryption key, the request being based on the key ID associated with the request received from the client device (column 17, lines, 42-40, the proxy determines the name or identifier is on the list of the exportable keys and forwards the request to the cryptographic device); and if the key ID upon which the request for the encryption key is based is successfully verified as corresponding to one of one or more common encryption keys stored by the broker device (column 18, lines 15-25, cryptographic device determines that the requested cryptographic key is exportable, encrypts the cryptographic key) , receiving the common encryption key (column 18, lines 26-49, the proxy server receives the encrypted cryptographic key (wrapped key) and sends the encrypted cryptographic key to the secure enclave of the client device).
Miller does not explicitly disclose, the common encryption key and key ID having been agreed between the client device and the broker device using a third party service. However, in an analogous art, Skuratovich discloses, negotiate a session key data that includes a session key and identifier of the session key (paragraph [0082]-[0084]), which corresponds to the limitation of the common encryption key and key ID having been agreed between the client device and the broker 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 Miller with Skuratovich. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, in order to achieve the predictable result of generating encrypted messages to be securely communicated between different entities.
As per claim 54, Miller discloses a system comprising: a client device; a broker device; and a
proxy sever comprising a processor (figure 1, column 3, lines 30-32) configured to: receive, from the client device, a request to establish a secure connection between the client device and the proxy server, based on a key ID (column 17, lines 20-27, “a proxy server receives, from a secure enclave on a client device, a request for a cryptographic key …The request includes a key name or identifier that identifies a cryptographic key”), wherein the key ID corresponds to a common encryption key (column 17, lines 20-27, “a proxy server receives, from a secure enclave on a client device, a request for a cryptographic key …The request includes a key name or identifier that identifies a cryptographic key”), wherein respective copies of the encryption key and the key ID are stored at the client device and at the broker device (column 4, lines 25-28, “if cryptographic device 140 stores multiple keys, then the cryptographic request may also include a key ID that uniquely identifies one of the keys”, and column 17, lines 20-27, the request from the secure enclave of the client device includes a key names, which implies the storage of the key name on the client device); transmit, to the broker device, a request for an encryption key, the request being based on the key ID associated with the request received from the client device (column 17, lines, 42-40, the proxy determines the name or identifier is on the list of the exportable keys and forwards the request to the cryptographic device); and if the key ID upon which the request for the encryption key is based is successfully verified as corresponding to one of one or more common encryption keys stored by the broker device (column 18, lines 15-25, cryptographic device determines that the requested cryptographic key is exportable, encrypts the cryptographic key), receive the common encryption key (column 18, lines 26-49, the proxy server receives the encrypted cryptographic key (wrapped key) and sends the encrypted cryptographic key to the secure enclave of the client device).
Miller does not explicitly disclose, the common encryption key and key ID having been agreed between the client device and the broker device using a third party service. However, in an analogous art, Skuratovich discloses, negotiate a session key data that includes a session key and identifier of the session key (paragraph [0082]-[0084]), which corresponds to the limitation of the common encryption key and key ID having been agreed between the client device and the broker 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 Miller with Skuratovich. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, in order to achieve the predictable result of generating encrypted messages communicated between different entities.
As per claim 36, Miller furthermore discloses, establishing a client communication channel between the client device and the proxy server for transmitting the request from the client device to the proxy server therethrough (column 4, lines 13-16, client communicating to the proxy server sending authentication).
As per claim 37, Miller furthermore discloses, establishing a broker communication channel between the broker device and the proxy server for transmitting the request from the proxy server to the broker device and/or the corresponding common encryption key therethrough (column 5, 62-67, cryptographic device communicates with proxy server via cryptographic interface 134).
Claims 38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Skuratovich , further in view of Nonaka et al. (US Publication No. 2009/0238368), hereinafter Nonaka.
As per claim 38, Miller as modified does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Nonaka discloses, wherein the broker communication channel comprises a shared memory (paragraph [0011], “The server includes: a shared key storage unite”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Miller with Nonaka. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to store multiple keys for multiple entity in a shared location.
As per claim 39, Miller furthermore discloses storing, by the broker device, the one or more common encryption keys in the [shared] memory (column 11, lines 56-56, “…cryptographic device that stores one or more cryptographic keys”); wherein transmitting the request for the encryption key from the proxy server to the broker device comprises: attempting to read, at the proxy server from the [shared] memory, an encryption key, wherein if said encryption key is one of the one or more common encryption keys, the attempting to read the encryption key is successful (column 17, lines, 42-49, the proxy determines the name or identifier is on the list of the exportable keys and forwards the request to the cryptographic device and the proxy server receives the encrypted cryptographic key (wrapped key) and sends the encrypted cryptographic key to the secure enclave of the client device).
Miller does not explicitly disclose, but Nonaka discloses storing one or more common encryption keys in the shared memory (paragraph [0011], “a shared key storage unit which stores the shared keys”), and attempting to read from the shared memory (paragraph [0011], “ obtains the shared key”).
The motivation is similar to the motivation provided in claim 38.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Skuratovich, further in view of Hearn et al. (US Publication No. 2003/0079120), herein after Hearn.
As per claim 40, Miller as modified does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Hearn discloses, the broker communication channel includes one or more pipes (paragraph [0079], “These proxies obtain the user's group keys from a process, the Key Server, using a Named Pipe”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Miller with Hearn. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the well-known Pipe in order to provide secure communication.
Claims 41-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Skuratovich, further in view of Greco et al. (US Patent No. 7,953,978), herein after Greco.
As per claim 41, Miller as modified does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Greco discloses, the broker communication channel includes a database (column 4, lines 5-10, “The key data 164a . . . 164n may each be described as a key store of keys used to create (encrypt) or unwrap (decrypt) the protected key. Also, the key data 164 may be described as including version information, an identifier of the proper keys to use in interpreting key data, and the encrypted encryption keys”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Miller with Greco. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to so, in order to enable distribution of cryptographic keys to proxy servers and client devices.
As per claim 42, Greco further discloses, wherein the broker communication channel includes a relational database management system that comprises the database (column 3, lines 16-18, “key manager 162a…”). The motivation is similar to the motivation provided in claim 41..
As per claim 43, Greco further discloses, wherein the database comprises a cache or distributed cache (column 9, lines 26-27, “cache memories”). The motivation is to provide temporary storage of data.
As per claim 44, Miller as modified further discloses, storing, by the broker device, the one or more key IDs and the one or more encryption keys in the database (column 4, lines 25-28, “cryptographic device 140 stores multiple keys, then the cryptographic request may also include a key ID that uniquely identifies one of the keys”); wherein transmitting the request for the encryption key, from the proxy server, includes querying the database with the request based on one of the one or more key IDs (column 4, lines 25-28, “the cryptographic request may also include a key ID that uniquely identifies one of the keys); and wherein receiving the corresponding common encryption key at the proxy server includes, after successful verification that the key ID upon which the request for the encryption key is based corresponds to the common encryption key, retrieving, by the proxy server, the common encryption key from the database (column 18, lines 15-25, cryptographic device determines that the requested cryptographic key is exportable, encrypts the cryptographic key), receive the common encryption key(column 18, lines 26-49, the proxy server receives the encrypted cryptographic key (wrapped key) and sends the encrypted cryptographic key to the secure enclave of the client device).
As per claim 45, Miller furthermore discloses, wherein the data stored in the database is encrypted with a key-encryption key, the key-encryption key being known to the proxy server and the broker device, (column 18, lines 15-25), the proxy server receives the encrypted cryptographic key (wrapped key) and sends the encrypted cryptographic key to the secure enclave of the client device).
As per claim 46, Greco furthermore discloses, wherein the proxy server is connected via one or more further broker communication channels to one or more further respective broker devices (column 4, lines 61-65, “the proxy server 140a…is able to try accessing multiple key servers…”), and wherein the method according to any preceding claim is operable to distribute an encryption key to the proxy server from any of the one or more further broker devices (column 5, lines 7-11, “Multiple key servers 160a ... 160n with key managers 162a ... 162n may be provided to enable high availability”) (i.e. if one key server160a .. . 160n is unavailable, another may be used by a data storage drive 120a ... 120n)”).
The motivation is to enable high availability of key server for retrieving encryption keys.
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Skuratovich, further in view of Fu (US Publication No. 2018/0109378), herein after Fu.
As per claim 53, Miller as modified does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art Fu discloses, wherein each of the one or more common encryption keys and corresponding key IDs are agreed across a quantum-secure communication channel between the client device and the broker device, wherein the quantum-secure communication channel is configured to implement the third party service (paragraph [0052], “communication partners can negotiate encryption keys (also referred to as quantum data keys) using the quantum channel and then use the negotiated keys for secure communication. For example, a client device within group 216 can communicate with the cloud servers using the quantum-enhanced secure channel”).
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 modified Miller with Fu. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide secure storage and retrieval of custom data in a cloud computing environment.
As per claim 48, claim includes limitations similar to those of claim 36, albeit directed to a different statutory category (method), and the for this reason the same grounds of rejection are applied to claim 48.
As per claim 49, claim includes limitations similar to those of claim 37, albeit directed to a different statutory category (method), and the for this reason the same grounds of rejection are applied to claim 49.
As per claim 50, claim includes limitations similar to those of claim 38 and 39, albeit directed to a different statutory category (method), and the for this reason the same grounds of rejection are applied to claim 50.
As per claim 51, claim includes limitations similar to those of claim 40, albeit directed to a different statutory category (method), and the for this reason the same grounds of rejection are applied to claim 51.
As per claim 52, claim includes limitations similar to those of claims 41 and 42, albeit directed to a different statutory category (method), and the for this reason the same grounds of rejection are applied to claim 52.
References Cited, Not Used
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Villapakkam et al. (US Patent No. 11,240,024) discloses, a key management service receives a data decryption request from a client application. The data decryption request includes encrypted data and a key proxy assigned to the client application. The key management service determines a generational index associated with the encrypted data. The generational index identifies a generation of a cryptographic key which is associated with the key proxy and which was used to create the encrypted data. The key management service obtains a cryptographic key from a secure key vault, which is mapped to the received key proxy and the determined generational index, decrypts the encrypted data using the obtained cryptographic key, and sends the decrypted data to the client application.
Syrivelis et al. ( US Publication No.2023/0006981) discloses, a network interface controller includes processing circuitry configured to pair with a local root of trust of a host device connected to the network interface controller and provide a key to an encryption device of the host device that enables the encryption device to encrypt data of one or more host device applications using the key. The encrypted data are stored in host device memory. The processing circuitry is configured to share the key with a remote endpoint and forward the encrypted data from the host device memory to the remote endpoint.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI ABYANEH whose telephone number is (571)272-7961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 8:00 am-5:00pm (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/ALI S ABYANEH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights