DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
The present office action is responsive to communications received on 10/24/2024. Claims 1-16 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) are:
“encryption operation module configured to perform and manage …” in claim 1.
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.
The written description discloses that the corresponding structure can be the structure recited in specification ¶50; therefore, the claims are definite and are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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 § 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.
Claim 1, 5, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (US 20100262312 A1) in view of Choi (US 20110123020 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kubota teaches an apparatus for defending against a side-channel attack in a battery management system, the apparatus comprising:
an encryption operation module configured to perform and manage encryption operations on data related to monitoring and charge and discharge management of a battery in the battery management system; ([0082] The mutual authentication between the battery 107 and the storage system manager 202 is completed, the charging operation, the discharging operation, the protecting operation of the battery 107 may be performed under the control of the storage system manager 202. The charging/discharging initiating command, the charging/discharging ending command, the charging voltage information, the charging current information, and the like are transacted via the information bus. In order to prevent wiretapping of the commands and information and to prevent falsification, the encryption of the data transacted between the battery 107 and the storage system manager 202 and the message authentication code (MAC: message authentication code) may be effectively used. In order to implement the data encryption and the message authentication code at high speed and low cost and with low power consumption, a common key block encryption method such as AES (advanced encryption standard) and CLEFIA (128-bit block encryption method developed by Sony) is effectively used. A Key (encryption key) for encryption and decoding and a MAC generation/verification key (MAC key) are shared by using a key sharing protocol at the time of mutual authentication between the battery 107 and the storage system manager 202 in advance.)
Kubota teaches performing and managing encryption operations on data of a battery, but does not explicitly teach a processor configured to process the encryption operations on the data using a plurality of cores according to management of the encryption operation module, wherein the encryption operation module performs the encryption operations in parallel by utilizing the plurality of cores of the processor. This aspect of the claim is identified as a difference.
However, Choi in an analogous art explicitly teaches
a processor configured to process the encryption operations on the data using a plurality of cores according to management of the encryption operation module, wherein the encryption operation module performs the encryption operations in parallel by utilizing the plurality of cores of the processor. ([0090-0091] Each of the endecryption units 131, 132, 133, and 134 may define a single core. As mentioned above, an XTS mode may operate at high speed by using a plurality of cores (endecryption units). When a data unit is processed at a single core, a modular multiplication operation procedure according to a primitive element α is not performed once but may be performed many times depending on the number of cores. For example, in the case of parallel processing using four cores, a modular multiplication operation procedure according to a primitive element α may be performed maximally four times at the respective cores.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the “protecting operation of battery” concept of Kubota, and the “parallel processing with multiple cores” approach of Choi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to improve performance because parallel processing is performed to encrypt/decrypt data at higher speed [Choi Abstract].
Regarding claim 5, Kubota in view of Choi teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. The combination further teaches wherein the encryption operation module divides input data into a plurality of pieces of data for performing the encryption operations on the plurality of pieces of data. ([Choi 0013] dividing an input data stream into a plurality of consecutive data units; inputting the divided data units to the endecryption units, respectively; and simultaneously processing the input data units at the respective endecryption units.)
Regarding claim 9 and 13, the scope of the claim is similar to that of claim 1 and 5, respectively. Accordingly, the claim is rejected using a similar rationale.
Claim 2-4, 6-8, 10-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (US 20100262312 A1) in view of Choi (US 20110123020 A1) and Chia (US 20140258731 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kubota in view of Choi teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. But the combination does not teach wherein the encryption operation module includes a plurality of virtualized encryption operation-specific containers. This aspect of the claim is identified as a difference.
However, Chia in an analogous art explicitly teaches
wherein the encryption operation module includes a plurality of virtualized encryption operation-specific containers. ([0010] a processing unit and a plurality of operating units electrically connected to the processing unit. Each of the operating units [analogous to “virtualized containers”] includes an encryption element and a memory element storing a plurality of encryption programs, and each of the encryption programs has a different combination of encryption algorithm and encryption mode [analogous to “encryption operation-specific”].)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the “protecting operation of battery” concept of Kubota, and the “data encryption” approach of Chia. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to increase the security and reliability of data transmission with higher encryption efficiency [Chia 0009].
Regarding claim 3, Kubota in view of Choi and Chia teaches all the features with respect to claim 2, as outlined above. The combination further teaches wherein the encryption operation module randomly uses a plurality of encryption algorithms using the plurality of virtualized encryption operation-specific containers. ([Chia 0010] The data encryption method comprises steps of: selecting one of the encryption programs randomly by each of the encryption elements; receiving, by each of the encryption elements, one of a plurality of keys randomly generated; inputting an unencrypted data; dividing the unencrypted data into a plurality of unencrypted data blocks by the processing unit; and encrypting the unencrypted data blocks by the encryption elements respectively according to the selected encryption programs and received keys to generate an encrypted data.)
Regarding claim 4, Kubota in view of Choi and Chia teaches all the features with respect to claim 3, as outlined above. The combination further teaches wherein the encryption operation module performs the encryption operations by assigning encryption algorithms that are randomly selected from among the plurality of encryption algorithms to the plurality of virtualized encryption operation-specific containers. ([Chia 0010] a processing unit and a plurality of operating units electrically connected to the processing unit. Each of the operating units includes an encryption element and a memory element storing a plurality of encryption programs, and each of the encryption programs has a different combination of encryption algorithm and encryption mode. The data encryption method comprises steps of: selecting one of the encryption programs randomly by each of the encryption elements; receiving, by each of the encryption elements, one of a plurality of keys randomly generated; inputting an unencrypted data; dividing the unencrypted data into a plurality of unencrypted data blocks by the processing unit; and encrypting the unencrypted data blocks by the encryption elements respectively according to the selected encryption programs and received keys to generate an encrypted data.)
Regarding claim 6, Kubota in view of Choi teaches all the features with respect to claim 5, as outlined above. Kubota in view of Choi and Chia further teaches wherein the encryption operation module randomly selects a piece of data from among the plurality of pieces of data and assigns the randomly selected piece of data to one of a plurality of virtualized encryption operation-specific containers to process the encryption operations for each of the plurality of pieces of data. ([Chia 0026] a plurality of operating units can generate unanticipated combinations of the encryption algorithm and mode through the random selection, and also the keys are randomly generated. Then, the unencrypted data is divided into a plurality of unencrypted data blocks, which are encrypted by different operating units.) Indeed, it would be obvious to rearrange select function to make the data selection random if it is desired; See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 7, Kubota in view of Choi and Chia teaches all the features with respect to claim 6, as outlined above. The combination further teaches wherein the encryption operation module randomly assigns the encryption operations to the plurality of cores of the processor in order to process each of the encryption operations for each of the plurality of pieces of data using the plurality of virtualized encryption operation-specific containers. ([Chia 0010] a processing unit and a plurality of operating units electrically connected to the processing unit. Each of the operating units includes an encryption element and a memory element storing a plurality of encryption programs, and each of the encryption programs has a different combination of encryption algorithm and encryption mode. The data encryption method comprises steps of: selecting one of the encryption programs randomly by each of the encryption elements; receiving, by each of the encryption elements, one of a plurality of keys randomly generated; inputting an unencrypted data; dividing the unencrypted data into a plurality of unencrypted data blocks by the processing unit; and encrypting the unencrypted data blocks by the encryption elements respectively according to the selected encryption programs and received keys to generate an encrypted data.)
Regarding claim 8, Kubota in view of Choi and Chia teaches all the features with respect to claim 7, as outlined above. The combination further teaches wherein, if the encryption operations are completed for each of the plurality of pieces of data using the plurality of virtualized encryption operation-specific containers, the encryption operation module combines result values obtained by performing the encryption operations and outputs final encrypted data. ([Chia 0055] The step S04 is to divide the unencrypted data D into a plurality of unencrypted data blocks d1˜dn by the processing unit 11. The step S05 is to encrypt one of the unencrypted data blocks d1˜dn according to the selected encryption program by each of the encryption elements 122 to generate an encrypted data (composed of the encrypted data blocks E1˜En).)
Regarding claim 10-12 and 14-16, the scope of the claim is similar to that of claim 2-4, and 6-8, respectively. Accordingly, the claim is rejected using a similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20130067253-A1, "Electric power information management apparatus, electric power information management system, and electric power information management method" by Tsuda (potential 1st).
US-20210284703-A1, "Encryption device and operation method thereof" by Kim (Samsung).
US-20230005391-A1, "Polymorphic encryption for security of a data vault" by Sharma (first encryption scheme, second encryption scheme, components being virtualized).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAN YANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7638. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 9:00-5:00.
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 on (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.
/HAN YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights