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
1. This is in response to the arguments filed on 06/24/2026.
2. Claims 1-9 are pending in the application.
3. Claims 1-9 have been rejected.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-9 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 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.
5. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanscom et al hereafter Hanscom (US pat. 9934496) and in view of Paya et al hereafter Paya (US pat. App. Pub. 20160292427).
6. As per claims 1, 3, and 6, Hanscom discloses a secure transmission method, a communication terminal, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium for securely transmitting data entered via a user interface of a communication terminal to a secure data processing device, the method being implemented by a module for processing the entered data comprised in the communication terminal and a user interface adapted for entering data comprising (fig. 1, 3:48-67, 4:1-34, and 4:64-67, wherein it emphasizes securely transmitting data enter via user interface of a communication terminal to a secure data processing device (proxy device)): receiving, from the user interface, a group of data sets comprising a first data set actually entered via the user interface and a plurality of second data sets whose, entry has been emulated by the user interface, the second data sets including dummy data (1:45-60, 2:4-42, 3:20-36, and 6:1-20, wherein it elaborates receiving from the user interface group of data sets comprising first data set that is actually entered via the user interface then second data sets including dummy data which is emulated by the user interface), encrypting, via said encryption, all of the data sets received, and transmitting all of the encrypted data sets to the secure processing device (5:4-32, and 5:52-63, wherein it deliberates that encrypting the received data sets and transmits it to the secure processing device). Although, Hanscom teaches that secure processing device encryption capability to perform encrypted version of the data sets which any ordinary skill in the art would understand that the secure processing device has encryption table but Hanscom does not expressly mention encryption table. However, in the same field of endeavor, Paya discloses receiving an encryption table from the secure processing device, and encrypting, via said encryption table, all of the data sets received (paragraphs: 8-9, 29-31, and 34).
Accordingly, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the network security art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Paya’s teachings of receiving an encryption table from the secure processing device, and encrypting, via said encryption table, all of the data sets received with the teachings of Hanscom, for the purpose of effectively protecting the data sets from any unauthorized intruders.
7. As per claim 2, Hanscom and in view of Paya discloses the secure transmission method comprising, upon receiving a message confirming a decryption of the first data set from the secure processing device, establishing communication with a processing server (Hanscom: 3:20-47, 5:4-33).
8. As per claim 4, Hanscom and in view of Paya discloses the communication terminal, further comprising a secure data processing device for securely processing the data entered via the user interface of the communication terminal, the secure data processing device comprising at least one processor configured to: transmit the encryption table to the module for processing the entered data, transmit said plurality of second data sets to the user interface, receive said plurality of second data sets encrypted using said encryption table in a phase during which: the data of the first data set, actually entered via the user interface and encrypted using said encryption table, are received by the secure data processing device (Hanscom: 6:1-41, and 7:3-37).
9. As per claim 5, Hanscom and in view of Paya discloses the communication terminal, wherein the user interface consists of a touch screen (Hanscom: 9:25-50, and 10:11-33).
10. As per claim 7, Hanscom and in view of Paya discloses the secure transmission method, wherein the user interface comprises an alphanumeric keyboard and a screen or a touchscreen (Hanscom: 9:25-50, and 10:11-33).
11. As per claim 8, Hanscom and in view of Paya discloses the communication terminal, wherein the user interface comprises an alphanumeric keyboard and a screen or a touchscreen (Hanscom: 9:25-50, and 10:11-33).
12. As per claim 9, Hanscom and in view of Paya discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the user interface comprises an alphanumeric keyboard and a screen or a touchscreen (Hanscom: 9:25-50, and 10:11-33).
Citation of References
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are cited but not been replied upon for this office action:
FRANCESCO (US pat. app. Pub. 20190012672): discusses improving the security of transaction in an emulated Integrated Circuit. During compilation time of a payment application, at least one detection agent are inserted into the code of the payment application. This detection agent is configured to detect an unauthorized use of the payment application. During a runtime of the payment application, if the detection agent result indicates “no threat detected” the payment application retrieves from a predefined map of “no threat detected”, the right value associated to the detection agent, otherwise a random false value is generated. The payment application alters at least one data manipulated during the transaction with the value retrieved or generated. A reverse mechanism of the payment application retrieve the right value and apply a restoration process to the altered data with the retrieved right value. The payment application computes a cryptogram from the restored manipulated data. From the computed cryptogram, a third party can authorize or reject the transaction.
ONO (US pat. App. Pub. 20210303149): elaborates that an emulator that emulates an information processing device, and a communicator which communicates with the information processing device, and the computer further having second recording circuits. The program controls the communicator to receive first information including input data, which is inputted to the information processing device, from the information processing device, causes recording of the first information in the first recording circuits, and controls the communicator to transmit second information to the information processing device, wherein the second information includes input data for the emulator.
Conclusion
14. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad W. Reza whose telephone number is 571-272-6590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (9:00-5:00).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cathy Thiaw can be reached on 571-270-1138. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MOHAMMAD W REZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407
