DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) dividing data and storing the divided data which is using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a compute. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not add significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2023/0239149 to Liu et al. (hereinafter “Liu”).
As to Claim 1, Liu discloses a method of storing a data item in an electronic system comprising at least two secure elements, wherein the method comprises the successive steps of:
dividing the data item into at least two parts (Paragraph [0060] of Liu discloses after acquiring the input data, computing device 110 may generate a predetermined number of shared portion sets from the input data, for example, in accordance with the Shamir secret sharing scheme); and
distributing and storing each of the at least two parts into one of the at least two secure elements (Paragraph [0065] of Liu discloses stores the predetermined number of shared portion sets in the predetermined number of trusted nodes according to a correspondence relationship between the predetermined number of shared portion sets and the predetermined number of trusted nodes).
As to Claim 2, Liu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the distributing of the at least two parts into the at least two secure elements is recorded in a row or column of a lookup table (Paragraph [0064] of Liu discloses taking the Shamir secret sharing scheme described previously as an example, once α, b, and x (trusted node identifiers) are determined, F(x) for each different M may be determined. Therefore, when input data are in bytes, all F(x) for all different M, i.e., 0-255, may be computed, and a correspondence relationship between these M and the corresponding shared portions is saved in a lookup table).
As to Claim 3, Liu discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the lookup table is stored in a single location of a system accessible to each of the at least two secure elements (Paragraph [0064] of Liu discloses taking the Shamir secret sharing scheme described previously as an example, once α, b, and x (trusted node identifiers) are determined, F(x) for each different M may be determined. Therefore, when input data are in bytes, all F(x) for all different M, i.e., 0-255, may be computed, and a correspondence relationship between these M and the corresponding shared portions is saved in a lookup table).
As to Claim 5, Liu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the distributing is different for each data item stored in the system (Paragraph [0056] of Liu discloses the predetermined number is associated with a secret sharing scheme to be used. For example, computing device 110 may receive from user 120 an instruction specifying a secret sharing scheme to be used, and the instruction may further indicate the number of trusted nodes to be used, which are associated with the secret sharing scheme to be used).
As to Claim 6, Liu discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the distributing is selected by selecting a row of a lookup table (Paragraph [0064] of Liu discloses taking the Shamir secret sharing scheme described previously as an example, once α, b, and x (trusted node identifiers) are determined, F(x) for each different M may be determined. Therefore, when input data are in bytes, all F(x) for all different M, i.e., 0-255, may be computed, and a correspondence relationship between these M and the corresponding shared portions is saved in a lookup table).
As to Claim 7, Liu discloses the method of claim 6, wherein selecting the row of the lookup table is performed by using a counter (Paragraph [0064] of Liu discloses taking the Shamir secret sharing scheme described previously as an example, once α, b, and x (trusted node identifiers) are determined, F(x) for each different M may be determined. Therefore, when input data are in bytes, all F(x) for all different M, i.e., 0-255, may be computed, and a correspondence relationship between these M and the corresponding shared portions is saved in a lookup table).
As to Claim 8, Liu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein each of the at least two secure elements is comprised in at least one operating domain of the system (Paragraph [0052] of Liu discloses a plurality of trusted nodes 130-1, 130-2, ..., 130-N (hereinafter collectively referred to as trusted node 130), and network 140).
As to Claim 9, Liu discloses the method of claim 8, wherein each at least one operating domain further comprises at least one electronic device (Paragraph [0052] of Liu discloses a plurality of trusted nodes 130-1, 130-2, ..., 130-N (hereinafter collectively referred to as trusted node 130), and network 140).
As to Claim 10, Liu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least two secure elements are on-board secure elements (Paragraph [0052] of Liu discloses a plurality of trusted nodes 130-1, 130-2, ..., 130-N (hereinafter collectively referred to as trusted node 130), and network 140. Computing device 110 may also be a trusted node or may be located in trusted node).
As to Claim 11, Liu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the data item is an application key (Paragraph [0003] of Liu discloses data includes personal data such as resumes, financial reports, medical records, family photos and videos, certificates and keys).
As to Claim 13, Liu discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising the successive steps of: retrieving the at least two parts of the data item stored in the at least two secure elements (Paragraph [0079] of Liu discloses computing device 110 respectively acquires, from a predetermined number of trusted nodes, at least a further predetermined number of shared portion sets); and
forming the data item by using the at least two parts (Paragraph [0079] of Liu discloses computing device 110 generates, based on the secret sharing scheme, the input data from the further predetermined number of shared portion sets).
As to Claim 14, Liu discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the forming of the data item is performed using a lookup table (Paragraph [0064] of Liu discloses taking the Shamir secret sharing scheme described previously as an example, once α, b, and x (trusted node identifiers) are determined, F(x) for each different M may be determined. Therefore, when input data are in bytes, all F(x) for all different M, i.e., 0-255, may be computed, and a correspondence relationship between these M and the corresponding shared portions is saved in a lookup table).
As to Claim 15, Liu discloses an electronic system comprising at least two secure elements and configured for storing a data item by following the successive steps of: dividing the data item into at least two parts (Paragraph [0060] of Liu discloses after acquiring the input data, computing device 110 may generate a predetermined number of shared portion sets from the input data, for example, in accordance with the Shamir secret sharing scheme); and
distributing and storing each of the at least two parts into one of the at least two secure elements (Paragraph [0065] of Liu discloses stores the predetermined number of shared portion sets in the predetermined number of trusted nodes according to a correspondence relationship between the predetermined number of shared portion sets and the predetermined number of trusted nodes).
As to Claim 16, Liu discloses the electronic system of claim 15, wherein the distributing of the at least two parts into the at least two secure elements is recorded in a row, or column, of a lookup table (Paragraph [0064] of Liu discloses taking the Shamir secret sharing scheme described previously as an example, once α, b, and x (trusted node identifiers) are determined, F(x) for each different M may be determined. Therefore, when input data are in bytes, all F(x) for all different M, i.e., 0-255, may be computed, and a correspondence relationship between these M and the corresponding shared portions is saved in a lookup table).
As to Claim 17, Liu discloses the electronic system of claim 16, wherein the lookup table is stored in a single location of the electronic system accessible to each of the at least two secure elements (Paragraph [0064] of Liu discloses taking the Shamir secret sharing scheme described previously as an example, once α, b, and x (trusted node identifiers) are determined, F(x) for each different M may be determined. Therefore, when input data are in bytes, all F(x) for all different M, i.e., 0-255, may be computed, and a correspondence relationship between these M and the corresponding shared portions is saved in a lookup table).
As to Claim 19, Liu discloses the electronic system of claim 15, wherein the distributing is different for each data item stored in the system (Paragraph [0056] of Liu discloses the predetermined number is associated with a secret sharing scheme to be used. For example, computing device 110 may receive from user 120 an instruction specifying a secret sharing scheme to be used, and the instruction may further indicate the number of trusted nodes to be used, which are associated with the secret sharing scheme to be used).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4, 12, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and further in view of US Pub. No. 2003/0174840 to Bogan (hereinafter “Bogan”).
As to Claim 4, Liu discloses the method of claim 2. Liu does not explicitly disclose wherein a copy of the lookup table is stored in each of the at least two secure elements.
However, Bogan discloses this. Figure 1 of Bogan discloses both nodes having lookup tables.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the security system as disclosed by Liu, with having lookup tables in each node as disclosed by Bogan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Liu and Bogan are directed toward security systems and as such it would be obvious to use the techniques of one in the other. Local copies of the look up table would improve access time.
As to Claim 12, Liu discloses the method of claim 1. Liu does not explicitly disclose wherein the distributing varies depending on an operating session of the system.
However, Bogan discloses this. Paragraph [0014] of Liu discloses the table and/or database lookup can be facilitated with information discovered during the session initiation.
Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 4.
As to Claim 18, Liu discloses the electronic system of claim 16. Liu does not explicitly disclose wherein a copy of the lookup table is stored in each of the at least two secure elements.
However, Bogan discloses this. Figure 1 of Bogan discloses both nodes having lookup tables.
Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 4.
As to Claim 20, Liu discloses the electronic system of claim 16. Liu does not explicitly disclose wherein the distributing varies depending on an operating session of the system.
However, Bogan discloses this. Paragraph [0014] of Liu discloses the table and/or database lookup can be facilitated with information discovered during the session initiation.
Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin S Mai whose telephone number is (571)270-5001. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM to 5PM.
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, Philip Chea can be reached at 5712723951. 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.
/KEVIN S MAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499