DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The following is a Final Office action in response to communications received on April 7, 2026. Claims 1-15 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the drawing objections set forth in the previous Office Action.
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the claim objections set forth in the previous Office Action. However, Applicant’s amendments have raised new grounds claim objections which are addressed herein below.
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth in the previous Office Action. However, Applicant’s amendments have raised new grounds 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections which are addressed herein below.
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections set forth in the previous Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites the phrase “the pipeline module.” It is suggested the phrase be amended to “the cryptographic pipeline module” for clarity and consistency.
Claim 4 recites the phrase “the pipeline module.” It is suggested the phrase be amended to “the cryptographic pipeline module” for clarity and consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the single iteration” and “the performance part”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations. Dependent claims 2-15 are rejected for containing the same indefinite language as parent claim 1 without further remedying the indefinite language.
Claim 4 recites the limitations “the processing module” and “the processing delay module”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the cryptographic pipeline module”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 8 recites the limitations “the data processing module”, “the processing delay module”, “the finalization module” and “the finalization delay module”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the communication module of claim 7”. Claim 7 is a method claim and does not recite a communication module. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which when executed by a general purpose computer…”. The limitation is unclear because software instructions are supposed to be executed, not a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The medium would typical contain the instructions to be executed. Therefore, the limitation is unclear.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 9 is directed towards a “pipeline component” configured to perform “one or more operations of the method according to claim 1” (emphasis added). This claim is dependent upon claim 1 but does not contain all of the limitations of claim 1 since the claim may only perform one operation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Dependent claims 10-12 and 15 are rejected for containing the same improper language as parent claim 9 without further remedying the improper language.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “feeding the input data and the UID to a cryptographic pipeline module that includes the hashing module that generates a hash value and a hashing delay module; delaying outputting the UID by the hashing delay module for a delay time that corresponds to an amount of processing time required by the hashing module for the single iteration of the performance part; wherein, in response to receiving the UID, the hashing delay module blocks transmission of further input data to the hashing module for as long as the UID is not output from the hashing delay module”.
The closest prior are of record are:
Patel et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,754,103) which discloses a delayed timer value for an indeterminate amount of time in a pipeline execution (col. 22 lines 27-50)
Ishii (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0037709) which discloses performing hash operations in a pipeline taking into account branching (paragraphs [0013]-[0015])
Beckwith (U.S. Patent No. 11,496,297) which discloses post-quantum cryptography using Dilithium-DSA (Abstract and col. 6 line 58 – col. 7 line 6)
While the prior art does generally disclose pipelining with branching for cryptographic operations, the prior art was not found to disclose the particularly cited limitations. Therefore, claim 1 is considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art. Dependent claims 2-15 are considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art based on their dependency.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS J PLECHA whose telephone number is (571)270-7506. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Taghi Arani can be reached at 571-272-3787. 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.
/THADDEUS J PLECHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights