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 .
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.
Claim 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zopf (US Publication No. 2011/0209029) in view of Gleichauf (US Publication No. 2003/0149869) and Cole (US Publication No. 2006/0182124).
Regarding claim 1, Zopf teaches:
An apparatus comprising: a receiver configured to receive a first copy of payload data and a corresponding first cyclic redundancy check (CRC) code, and a second copy of the payload data and a corresponding second CRC code, (see para. 124: the method 1100 begins by receiving, from a communication channel, a first signal sequence and a second signal sequence that corresponds to a retransmission of the first signal sequence (e.g., the second signal sequence being a copy of the first signal sequence). And see fig. 6: 1st TX and 2nd TX are examples of signal sequences and include X data bits (payload data) and Y CRC bits.)
… and one or more processors configured to: … append the first CRC code to the first… [payload] data to form first data, and append the second CRC code to the second… [payload] data to form second data; determine one or more bit positions, at each of which the first data and the second data have bit values different from each other; and correct, based at least on the one or more bit positions, an error contained in the first data. (see fig. 6: 1st TX (first payload copy appended to first CRC code) and 2nd TX (second payload copy appended to second CRC code) are used to determine bit positions at which the 1st TX (collectively first data) and 2nd TX (collectively second data) have bit values different from each other via XORing 1st TX and 2nd TX. The XOR stream generated from the comparison is the set of possible bit error positions. Further described in para 125: the method 1100 continues by determining one or more bit error locations within the first signal sequence and the second signal sequence in accordance with mapping operations (e.g., XOR) of the first signal sequence and the second signal sequence… the method 110 then operates by selecting one or more permutation syndromes based on mapping operations (e.g., XOR)… those permutation syndromes that match the CRC remainder are identified as being possible solutions. And see para. 126: The method 1100 continues by determining if a single solution is arrived upon, as shown in decision block 1140 (e.g., a single permutation syndrome), this is a unique and correct solution and a corrected signal sequence may be generated. Such generation of a corrected sequence may be made by flipping bits, as shown in block 1150.)
However, Zopf does not explicitly teach wherein:
each of the first copy and the second copy is encrypted with an identical keystream;
decrypt, using the keystream, the first copy to obtain first decrypted data and the second copy to obtain second decrypted data;
In the analogous art of digital communications, Gleichauf teaches:
each of the first copy and the second copy is encrypted with a… keystream; decrypt, using the keystream, the first copy to obtain first decrypted data and the second copy to obtain second decrypted data; (see claim 15: encrypting the multimedia content from plaintext form into ciphertext by applying a randomly generated keystream having a length equal to the length of the multimedia content bitwise using an exclusive-or operation; transmitting the ciphertext… to the consumer… the consumer may decrypt and view the multimedia content in plaintext form by applying the keystream to the ciphertext bitwise using an exclusive-or operation.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zopf and Gleichauf before them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the encrypting taught by Gleichauf into the method of copied transmission of data, to allow for benefits such as protecting the information from unauthorized access and to ensure safe transmission (Gleichauf, para. 11). The CRC bits of Zopf would not be encrypted because they could not be used to reconstruct the encrypted message without the keystream.
However, the combination of Zopf and Gleichauf does not explicitly teach wherein:
each of the first copy and the second copy is encrypted with an identical keystream;
In the analogous art of digital communications, Cole teaches:
each of the first… [message] and the second… [message] is encrypted with an identical keystream; (see para. 15: the session key which has been exchanged is used to encrypt and decrypt subsequent packet transmissions between the first and second devices which correspond to the active session between them.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zopf, Gleichauf, and Cole before them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the encrypting multiple transmissions with the same key (Cole) into the method of copied transmission of encrypted data (Zopf and Gleichauf), to allow for benefits such as non-disruptive and seamless encryption (Cole, para. 24).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Zopf, Gleichauf, and Cole teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Zopf further teaches:
wherein in correcting the error contained in the first data, the one or more processors are configured to: determine, based at least on the one or more bit positions, one or more error positions at which an error occurs in the first copy or the first CRC code; and perform a bit flip on the first data at the one or more error positions. (see para 125: the method 1100 continues by determining one or more bit error locations within the first signal sequence and the second signal sequence in accordance with mapping operations (e.g., XOR) of the first signal sequence and the second signal sequence… the method 110 then operates by selecting one or more permutation syndromes based on mapping operations (e.g., XOR)… those permutation syndromes that match the CRC remainder are identified as being possible solutions. And see para. 126: The method 1100 continues by determining if a single solution is arrived upon, as shown in decision block 1140 (e.g., a single permutation syndrome), this is a unique and correct solution and a corrected signal sequence may be generated. Such generation of a corrected sequence may be made by flipping bits, as shown in block 1150.)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Zopf, Gleichauf, and Cole teaches the apparatus of claim 2. Zopf further teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to: calculate a CRC remainder using the first copy and the first CRC code; and determine the one or more error positions using the CRC remainder and one or more CRC syndromes at the one or more bit positions. (see para 125: the method 1100 continues by determining one or more bit error locations within the first signal sequence and the second signal sequence in accordance with mapping operations (e.g., XOR) of the first signal sequence and the second signal sequence… the method 110 then operates by selecting one or more permutation syndromes based on mapping operations (e.g., XOR) as shown in a block 1130. In some instances, only single-bit error syndromes are needed (e.g., when only a singular most likely or potential bit error location is determined). However, in some instances, two or more most likely (or potential) bit error locations may be determined, and linear combinations (summations) of multiple single-bit error syndromes are combined together (in real time) for use in comparison against a CRC remainder of the received first (or second) signal sequence. Those permutation syndromes that match the CRC remainder are identified as being possible solutions. And see para. 126: The method 1100 continues by determining if a single solution is arrived upon, as shown in decision block 1140 (e.g., a single permutation syndrome), this is a unique and correct solution and a corrected signal sequence may be generated. Such generation of a corrected sequence may be made by flipping bits, as shown in block 1150.)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Zopf, Gleichauf, and Cole teaches the apparatus of claim 3. Zopf further teaches:
wherein in determining the one or more error positions, the one or more processors are configured to: determine that a sum of CRC syndromes at the one or more error positions is equal to the CRC remainder. (see para 125: the method 1100 continues by determining one or more bit error locations within the first signal sequence and the second signal sequence in accordance with mapping operations (e.g., XOR) of the first signal sequence and the second signal sequence… the method 110 then operates by selecting one or more permutation syndromes based on mapping operations (e.g., XOR) as shown in a block 1130. In some instances, only single-bit error syndromes are needed (e.g., when only a singular most likely or potential bit error location is determined). However, in some instances, two or more most likely (or potential) bit error locations may be determined, and linear combinations (summations) of multiple single-bit error syndromes are combined together (in real time) for use in comparison against a CRC remainder of the received first (or second) signal sequence. Those permutation syndromes that match the CRC remainder are identified as being possible solutions. And see para. 126: The method 1100 continues by determining if a single solution is arrived upon, as shown in decision block 1140 (e.g., a single permutation syndrome), this is a unique and correct solution and a corrected signal sequence may be generated. Such generation of a corrected sequence may be made by flipping bits, as shown in block 1150.)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Zopf, Gleichauf, and Cole teaches the apparatus of claim 3. Zopf further teaches:
wherein in determining the one or more error positions, the one or more processors are configured to: perform an exclusive OR (XOR) on CRC syndromes at the one or more error positions and the CRC remainder; and determine that a result of the XOR is equal to 0 (zero). (see para 125: the method 1100 continues by determining one or more bit error locations within the first signal sequence and the second signal sequence in accordance with mapping operations (e.g., XOR) of the first signal sequence and the second signal sequence… the method 110 then operates by selecting one or more permutation syndromes based on mapping operations (e.g., XOR) as shown in a block 1130. In some instances, only single-bit error syndromes are needed (e.g., when only a singular most likely or potential bit error location is determined). However, in some instances, two or more most likely (or potential) bit error locations may be determined, and linear combinations (summations) of multiple single-bit error syndromes are combined together (in real time) for use in comparison against a CRC remainder of the received first (or second) signal sequence. Those permutation syndromes that match the CRC remainder are identified as being possible solutions. And see para. 126: The method 1100 continues by determining if a single solution is arrived upon, as shown in decision block 1140 (e.g., a single permutation syndrome), this is a unique and correct solution and a corrected signal sequence may be generated. Such generation of a corrected sequence may be made by flipping bits, as shown in block 1150.) Determining that a permutation syndrome matches the CRC remainder is effectively performing an XOR operation and determining the result is equal to zero.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Zopf, Gleichauf, and Cole teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Gleichauf further teaches:
wherein each of a length of the first copy and a length of the second copy is the same as a length of the keystream. (see claim 15: encrypting the multimedia content from plaintext form into ciphertext by applying a randomly generated keystream having a length equal to the length of the multimedia content bitwise using an exclusive-or operation; transmitting the ciphertext… to the consumer… the consumer may decrypt and view the multimedia content in plaintext form by applying the keystream to the ciphertext bitwise using an exclusive-or operation.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zopf, Cole, and Gleichauf before them, to incorporate the encrypting via a keystream of the same length taught by Gleichauf into the method of copied transmission of data (Zopf), where both copies are encrypted by the same keystream (Cole), to allow for benefits such as protecting the information from unauthorized access and to ensure safe transmission (Gleichauf, para. 11).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Zopf, Gleichauf, and Cole teaches the apparatus of claim 6. Gleichauf further teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to: perform a bitwise exclusive OR (XOR) between the first copy and the keystream to obtain the first decrypted data; and perform a bitwise XOR between the second copy and the keystream to obtain the second decrypted data. (see claim 15: encrypting the multimedia content from plaintext form into ciphertext by applying a randomly generated keystream having a length equal to the length of the multimedia content bitwise using an exclusive-or operation; transmitting the ciphertext… to the consumer… the consumer may decrypt and view the multimedia content in plaintext form by applying the keystream to the ciphertext bitwise using an exclusive-or operation.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zopf, Cole, and Gleichauf before them, to incorporate the XOR encrypting/decrypting taught by Gleichauf into the method of copied transmission of data (Zopf), where both copies are encrypted by the same keystream (Cole), to allow for benefits such as protecting the information from unauthorized access and to ensure safe transmission (Gleichauf, para. 11).
Claims 8-14 correspond to claims 1-7 (respectively), and are rejected accordingly.
Claim 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zopf in view of Gleichauf.
Regarding claim 15, Zopf teaches:
An apparatus comprising: a receiver configured to receive a first copy of payload data and a corresponding first cyclic redundancy check (CRC) code, and a second copy of the payload data and a corresponding second CRC code, (see para. 124: the method 1100 begins by receiving, from a communication channel, a first signal sequence and a second signal sequence that corresponds to a retransmission of the first signal sequence (e.g., the second signal sequence being a copy of the first signal sequence). And see fig. 6: 1st TX and 2nd TX are examples of signal sequences and include X data bits (payload data) and Y CRC bits.) … determine one or more bit positions, at each of which the first [payload] data and the second [payload] data have bit values different from each other; and correct, based at least on the one or more bit positions, an error contained in the first decrypted data or the second decrypted data. (see fig. 6: 1st TX (first payload copy appended to first CRC code) and 2nd TX (second payload copy appended to second CRC code) are used to determine bit positions at which the 1st TX (collectively first data) and 2nd TX (collectively second data) have bit values different from each other via XORing 1st TX and 2nd TX. The XOR stream generated from the comparison is the set of possible bit error positions. Further described in para 125: the method 1100 continues by determining one or more bit error locations within the first signal sequence and the second signal sequence in accordance with mapping operations (e.g., XOR) of the first signal sequence and the second signal sequence… the method 110 then operates by selecting one or more permutation syndromes based on mapping operations (e.g., XOR)… those permutation syndromes that match the CRC remainder are identified as being possible solutions. And see para. 126: The method 1100 continues by determining if a single solution is arrived upon, as shown in decision block 1140 (e.g., a single permutation syndrome), this is a unique and correct solution and a corrected signal sequence may be generated. Such generation of a corrected sequence may be made by flipping bits, as shown in block 1150.)
However, Zopf does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first copy is encrypted with a first keystream and the second copy is encrypted with a second keystream that is different from the first keystream; and one or more processors configured to: decrypt, using the first keystream, the first copy to obtain first decrypted data and decrypt, using the second keystream, the second copy to obtain second decrypted data;
In the analogous art of digital transmissions, Gleichauf teaches:
wherein the first copy is encrypted with a first keystream and the second copy is encrypted with a second keystream that is different from the first keystream; and one or more processors configured to: decrypt, using the first keystream, the first copy to obtain first decrypted data and decrypt, using the second keystream, the second copy to obtain second decrypted data; (see claim 15: encrypting the multimedia content from plaintext form into ciphertext by applying a randomly generated keystream having a length equal to the length of the multimedia content bitwise using an exclusive-or operation; transmitting the ciphertext… to the consumer… the consumer may decrypt and view the multimedia content in plaintext form by applying the keystream to the ciphertext bitwise using an exclusive-or operation. And see para 87: It is a challenge to know how often to distribute new keys. Key distribution frequency may be based upon estimates of growth in computational capacity… and the length of time that the data owner estimates that it is necessary to keep the data protected, and assumptions about the security of the encryption algorithm used. A long trusted encryption code might be subject to a new algorithm that requires far fewer resources to decrypt. The desired protection time can be very difficult to determine; the easiest assumption is to estimate the time is indefinite, and use of a one-time-pad guarantees security over an indefinite time.) A one-time-pad keystream is used exactly once, and a new one is generated for each subsequent transmission. Therefore the first and second keystreams would be different.
Claims 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 correspond to claims 2, 3, 2, 3 and 6 (respectively) and are rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK K BARNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0431. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-5, F 8-4 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, Mark Featherstone can be reached at 571-270-3750. 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.
/JACK KENSINGTON BARNETT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2111
/MARK D FEATHERSTONE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2111