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
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Any references to applicant’s specification are made by way of applicant’s U.S. pre-grant printed patent publication.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7 – 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/17/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 – 6 and 12 – 20 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 claims 1 and 19, the recitations “…public token” and “private token” have no standard definition within the art. Furthermore, the applicant’s specification fails to provide any concrete definition to the terms. Thus, the scope of subject matter falling within or outside a “public token” or a “private token” is unclear and the claims are rendered indefinite.
Specifically, regarding claims 1 and 19, the recitation “… wherein in a case that the first private token is verified, the first public token is obtainable by applying the one-way function to the first private token …” renders the scope of the claims indefinite. Specifically, these claims already comprise antecedent basis for receiver device as ‘obtaining’ the “first public token” – namely through the method steps of receiving and storing the first public token. Thus, it is unclear as to why the claims appear to condition the receiver device as only ‘obtaining’ the public token after applying a one-way hash to the private token.
Depending claims are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 12, 13, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barnes et al. (Barnes), “The Messaging Layer Security (MLS) Protocol, draft-ietf-mls-protocol-20”.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood in view of the above noted deficiencies of clarity, Barnes discloses:
A method of authenticating, at a receiver user device, a message received from a sender user device in a group messaging protocol comprising (e.g. Barnes, Abstract):
receiving at the receiver user device a first public token associated with the sender user device; storing the first public token at the receiver user device (e.g. Barnes, sect. 8 – “membership” key; sect. 9, Key Schedule – the receiver obtains a membership_key for each member of a group, i.e. “public token”);
receiving at the receiver user device a first private token and a ciphertext that encrypts at least a message from the sender user device (e.g. Barnes, sect. 6.2; sect. 6.3 – receiving a membership_tag, i.e. “private token” along with receiving ciphertext messages);
decrypting, by the receiver user device, the ciphertext to obtain the message (e.g. Barnes, sect. 6.3.1 – receiver decrypts message);
verifying by the receiver user device the first private token against the stored first public token using a one-way function, wherein in a case that the first private token is verified, the first public token is obtainable by applying the one-way function to the first private token (e.g. Barnes, sect. 6.1; sect. 16.5 – the receiver applies a HMAC to the stored membership_key to verify the membership_tag);
and in a case that the first private token is verified, determining that the message has been received from the sender user device, wherein at least one of the first public token and the first private token is received at the receiver user device in an encrypted format (e.g. Barnes, sect. 6; sect. 6.1 – the message is accepted if the sender is a group member).
Regarding claim 2, Barnes discloses:
wherein the receiver user device receives the first public token from a server, and the received first public token is encrypted in a previous ciphertext (e.g. Barnes, sect. 13.4 – Barnes teaches that the senders and receivers may be perceived as “clients” and “servers”).
Regarding claim 3, Barnes discloses:
wherein the receiver user device receives the ciphertext from the server and the ciphertext encrypts both the first private token and the message (e.g. Barnes, sect. 13.4 – Barnes teaches that the senders and receivers may be perceived as “clients” and “servers”).
Regarding claim 12, Barnes discloses:
wherein the ciphertext is encrypted by the sender user device and decrypted by the receiver user device using a symmetric encryption key that is derived from a group secret associated with the group messaging protocol (e.g. Barnes, sect. 6; fig. 12; sect. 6.3).
Regarding claim 13, Barnes discloses:
wherein the sender user device derives the symmetric encryption key from the group secret associated with the group messaging protocol (e.g. Barnes, sect. 6; fig. 12; sect. 6.3).
.
Regarding claim 15, Barnes discloses:
wherein the one-way function is a truncated cryptographic function (e.g. Barnes, sect. 71.1 – HMAC functions).
.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, they are system and medium claims, essentially corresponding to the method claims above, and they are rejected, at least, for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
See Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY L WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7965. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on 571-272-3739. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEFFERY L WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights