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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The IDS filed 11/25/2024 was received and considered.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 (preliminary amendment 7/22/2025) are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6 and 7, the claims recite “shared information generated by a pairing operation”. The specification describes generating a shared key (pp. 19-20). However, the specification does not describe or identify “shared information generated by a pairing operation” such that a skilled artisan can make or use the invention, as claimed.
Claims 2-3 inherit the deficiency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is directed to “A key exchange system that realizes a key exchange with authentication between a first instrument that performs authentication based on an ID-based encryption and a second instrument that performs authentication based on an electronic certificate, wherein the first instrument comprises…”. However, the scope of the claimed system is not made clear in the claims (for example, it is unclear if the first and/or second instruments are included in the claimed system). For the purposes of this Office Action, it is assumed that the claimed system comprises the recited first and second instruments.
Claims 2-3 inherit the deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Integrating identity-based and certificate-based authenticated key exchange protocols” by Ustaoglu, in view of US 2017/0064554 A1 (LI; Dongsheng) (Li) and US 2019/0208417 A1 (KANG; Xin et al.) (Kang).
Regarding claim 1, Ustaoglu discloses a key exchange system that realizes a key exchange (generates session key, p. 207, ¶1) with authentication (protocol uses certificate A in message to UB, p. 206, §4.3.1) between a first instrument that performs authentication based on an ID-based encryption (UB uses ID-based encryption, p. 206, §4.3.1, ¶1) and a second instrument that performs authentication based on an electronic certificate (UA uses certificate-based encryption, p. 206, §4.3.1, ¶1), wherein the first instrument comprises configuration to generate a session key to be used for encrypted communication with the second instrument (each of UA and UB generates session key k, p. 206, §4.3.1) by using the electronic certificate (certificate A, p. 206, §4.3.1, ¶1) and shared information (σ1, p. 206, §4.3.1) generated by a pairing operation (σ1=e(IDB…), p. 206, §4.3.1), and the second instrument comprises configuration to: generate a session key to be used for the encrypted communication with the first instrument by using the electronic certificate (each of UA and UB generates session key k, p. 206, §4.3.1) and the shared information generated by the pairing operation (σ1, p. 206, §4.3.1 generating by σ1=e(IDB…), p. 206, §4.3.1). Ustaoglu lacks the first instrument comprising configuration to verify the electronic certificate, verify a signature generated by the second instrument by using a verification key associated with the electronic certificate when the verification of the electronic certificate is successful and lacks the second instrument comprising configuration to generate the signature by using a signature key corresponding to the verification key. However, Li, in an analogous art (generating a session key between two devices, ¶136) teaches that it was known for one communication partner verify the electronic certificate (verifying certificate, ¶134), verify a signature generated by the second instrument by using a verification key (verify signature using public key, ¶135) associated with the electronic certificate (public key in the intelligent cipher token certificate, ¶134) when the verification of the electronic certificate is successful (¶¶134-135), in response to a successful verification, generate session key generation information and exchange the session key generation information to enable generation of a common session key (¶¶136, ¶143) and for the other communication partner to generate the signature by using a signature key (intelligent token signs the third information to be signed using a private key, ¶133) corresponding to the verification key (terminal verifies the signed information using the public key in the certificate, ¶135). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ustaoglu such that first instrument comprises configuration to verify the electronic certificate, verify a signature generated by the second instrument by using a verification key associated with the electronic certificate when the verification of the electronic certificate is successful and the second instrument comprises configuration to generate the signature by using a signature key corresponding to the verification key. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to verify the authenticity of the communication partner (the claimed first instrument) and to verify the authenticity of the messages sent from the communication partner, as taught by Li. As modified, Ustaoglu lacks the first and second instruments comprising: a processor; and a memory storing program instructions that cause the processor to perform the recited functions. However, Kang, in an analogous art (authentication based on identity-based cryptography, ¶143), teaches that it was known to implement devices involved in a communication exchange using a processor; and a memory storing program instructions that cause the processor to perform the functions (“terminal device includes a processor, a receiver, a transmitter, and a memory. The memory is configured to store an instruction, the processor is configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory, and when the processor executes the instruction stored in the memory, the execution enables the processor to perform the method”, ¶23, ¶540). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Ustaoglu such that each of the first and second instruments comprises: a processor and a memory storing program instructions that cause the processor to perform the recited functions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to utilize a known hardware and software stack to perform computing device functions, as taught by Kang.
Regarding claim 2, Ustaoglu, as modified, teaches wherein the first program instructions cause the first processor (UB, as modified by Kang) to generate the session key by further using at least one of the signature and the verification key (UB computes the session key using σse=xBA, p. 207, ¶1), and the second program instructions cause the second processor (UA, as modified by Kang) to generate the session key by further using at least one of the signature and the verification key (UA computes the session key using the certificate, e.g. K=H(…Â…), p. 207, ¶1).
Regarding claim 4, Ustaoglu discloses an instrument configured to perform authentication based on an ID-based encryption (UB uses ID-based encryption, p. 206, §4.3.1, ¶1) and perform a key exchange (generates session key, p. 207, ¶1) with authentication (protocol uses certificate A in message to UB, p. 206, §4.3.1) with another instrument for performing authentication based on an electronic certificate (UA uses certificate-based encryption, p. 206, §4.3.1, ¶1), the instrument comprising configuration to: and generate the session key to be used for encrypted communication with the other instrument (each of UA and UB generates session key k, p. 206, §4.3.1) by using the electronic certificate (certificate A, p. 206, §4.3.1, ¶1) and shared information (σ1, p. 206, §4.3.1) generated by a pairing operation (σ1=e(IDB…), p. 206, §4.3.1). Ustaoglu lacks the instrument comprising configuration to: verify the electronic certificate; verify a signature generated by the other instrument by using the verification key associated with the electronic certificate when the verification of the electronic certificate is successful and generating the session key when the verification of the signature is successful. However, Li, in an analogous art (generating a session key between two devices, ¶136) teaches that it was known to verify a certificate of a first device and verify a signature created by the first device and, in response to a successful verification, generate session key generation information and exchange the session key generation information to enable generation of a common session key (¶¶136, ¶143). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ustaoglu such that the instrument comprises configuration to verify the electronic certificate; verify a signature generated by the other instrument by using the verification key associated with the electronic certificate when the verification of the electronic certificate is successful and to generate the session key when the verification of the signature is successful. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to verify the authenticity of the communication partner (the claimed another instrument) and to verify the authenticity of the messages sent from the communication partner, as taught by Li. As modified, Ustaoglu lacks the instrument comprising: a processor; and a memory storing program instructions that cause the processor to perform the recited functions. However, Kang, in an analogous art (authentication based on identity-based cryptography, ¶143), teaches that it was known to implement devices involved in a communication exchange using a processor; and a memory storing program instructions that cause the processor to perform the functions (“terminal device includes a processor, a receiver, a transmitter, and a memory. The memory is configured to store an instruction, the processor is configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory, and when the processor executes the instruction stored in the memory, the execution enables the processor to perform the method”, ¶23, ¶540). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Ustaoglu such that the instrument comprises: a processor and a memory storing program instructions that cause the processor to perform the recited functions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to utilize a known hardware and software stack to perform computing device functions, as taught by Kang.
Regarding claim 7, Ustaoglu, as modified by Li, lacks a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored therein a program causing a computer to perform the method of claim 6. However, Kang, in an analogous art (authentication based on identity-based cryptography, ¶143), teaches that it was known to implement devices involved in a communication exchange using a processor; and a memory storing program instructions that cause the processor to perform the functions (“terminal device includes a processor, a receiver, a transmitter, and a memory. The memory is configured to store an instruction, the processor is configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory, and when the processor executes the instruction stored in the memory, the execution enables the processor to perform the method”, ¶23, ¶540, including implementation using a non-transitory computer readable medium, per claims 11, 17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Ustaoglu such that the instruments comprise: a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored therein a program causing a computer to perform the method of claim 6. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to utilize a known hardware and software stack to perform computing device functions, as taught by Kang.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ustaoglu, in view of Li.
Regarding claim 6, Ustaoglu discloses a method that realizes a key exchange (generates session key, p. 207, ¶1) with authentication (protocol uses certificate A in message to UB, p. 206, §4.3.1) between a first instrument that performs authentication based on an ID-based encryption (UB uses ID-based encryption, p. 206, §4.3.1, ¶1) and a second instrument that performs authentication based on an electronic certificate (UA uses certificate-based encryption, p. 206, §4.3.1, ¶1), the method comprising: generating, by the first instrument, a session key to be used for encrypted communication with the second instrument (each of UA and UB generates session key k, p. 206, §4.3.1) by using the electronic certificate (certificate A, p. 206, §4.3.1, ¶1) and shared information (σ1, p. 206, §4.3.1) generated by a pairing operation (σ1=e(IDB…), p. 206, §4.3.1), and generating, by the second instrument, a session key to be used for the encrypted communication with the first instrument by using the electronic certificate (each of UA and UB generates session key k, p. 206, §4.3.1) and the shared information generated by the pairing operation (σ1, p. 206, §4.3.1 generating by σ1=e(IDB…), p. 206, §4.3.1). Ustaoglu lacks the first instrument comprising configuration to verify the electronic certificate, verify a signature generated by the second instrument by using a verification key associated with the electronic certificate when the verification of the electronic certificate is successful and lacks the second instrument comprising configuration to generate the signature by using a signature key corresponding to the verification key. However, Li, in an analogous art (generating a session key between two devices, ¶136) teaches that it was known for one communication partner verify the electronic certificate (verifying certificate, ¶134), verify a signature generated by the second instrument by using a verification key (verify signature using public key, ¶135) associated with the electronic certificate (public key in the intelligent cipher token certificate, ¶134) when the verification of the electronic certificate is successful (¶¶134-135) , in response to a successful verification, generate session key generation information and exchange the session key generation information to enable generation of a common session key (¶¶136, ¶143) and for the other communication partner to generate the signature by using a signature key (intelligent token signs the third information to be signed using a private key, ¶133) corresponding to the verification key (terminal verifies the signed information using the public key in the certificate, ¶135). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ustaoglu such that first instrument comprises configuration to verify the electronic certificate, verify a signature generated by the second instrument by using a verification key associated with the electronic certificate when the verification of the electronic certificate is successful and the second instrument comprises configuration to generate the signature by using a signature key corresponding to the verification key. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to verify the authenticity of the communication partner (the claimed first instrument) and to verify the authenticity of the messages sent from the communication partner, as taught by Li.
Potential Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would likely be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and any applicable rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 and/or §112 are overcome.
Regarding claim 3, Ustaoglu teaches the second program instructions cause the second processor (UA, as modified by Kang) to generate a verification key independent of the ID-based encryption (UA generates ephemeral public key XA=xAP, p. 206, §4.3.1), but lacks the second program instructions causing the second processor to generate the verification key and the signature key by a predetermined signature system independent of the ID-based encryption, in combination with the remaining elements of the claims when considered as a whole.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“One-round cross-domain group key exchange protocol in the standard model” (Lan, Xiao, et al. ) teaches group key exchange across domains (ID-based and certificate-based; see p. 388), including signature generation (p. 395).
“Hybrid key encapsulation mechanisms and authenticated key exchange” (Bindel, Nina, et al.) teaches authenticated key exchange with hybrid keys.
“Certificate-based authenticated key agreement protocols” (Nabil, Mohamed, et al.) teaches key agreement PKI-based certificates and ID-based cryptosystems.
WO 2018169489 A1 (YANG YANJIANG et al.) teaches identity-based authenticated key exchange.
US 20170006411 A1 (Zakaria; Omar et al.) teaches verifying a signature in a IoT-based key agreement program (¶¶164-165).
JP 2016076877 A (YONEYAMA KAZUKI et al.) teaches ID-based key agreement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SIMITOSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00-3:00.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/Michael Simitoski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
February 11, 2026