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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to applicant’s original submittal made on 12/06/2024. Claims 1-16 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Specification (Title)
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
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) is/are: user device configured … in claim 10. The examiner notes that figure 1 illustrates that the user device comprises a processor and therefore the examiner notes that the structure of the user device is hardware.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: being configured … in claim 15.
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.
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 § 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.
Claim 15 is 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. The examiner notes that applicant recites “being configured to…” in claim 15 however the specification does not disclose the structure of the “being”.
Claim 16 don't cure the deficiency of claim 15 and are rejected under 35 USC 112 for their dependency upon claim 15.
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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "being…" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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. The examiner contends that the metes and bounds of applicant’s claim limitation element of, “…smaller than”, cannot be readily appraised.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Claims 11-14 don't cure the deficiency of claim 10 and are rejected under 35 USC 112 for their dependency upon claim 10.
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 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 10 and 15 are directed towards a system comprising a “device“. The examiner notes that the device as recited does not include a explicit hardware element. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably define the “device” in this instance to be solely realized by software. The examiner advises the applicant to amend the system of independent claim 1 to recite a known hardware element such as “memory”.
Claims 11-14 don't cure the deficiency of claim 10 and are rejected under 35 USC 101 for their dependency upon claim 10. Claim 16 don't cure the deficiency of claim 15 and are rejected under 35 USC 101 for their dependency upon claim 15.
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(s) 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASNY (EP 4040716) in view of LYUBASHEVSKY et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2017/0366349 and LYUBASHEVSKY hereinafter).
As to claims 1 and 15, MASNY teaches a computer-implemented method of generating a signature for a message comprising:
at a user device: processing the message m and random data r to generate a commitment c for the message and transmitting the commitment c to a signer device (i.e. …teaches in par. 0040 the following: “Entity 2 can receive A and pk from Entity 1. At block 112, Entity 2 can choose a random value vector r, where …. At block 114, Entity 2 can generate a message m, which can be, for example, a random nonce”));
the signer device can sample a short vector e ∈ Rqn+k for which ‖e‖ is smaller than a bounding value B and [a1│v] eT = u; (i.e., …teaches in par. 0030 the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
229
852
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
and transmitting the short vector e to the user device, and at the user device (i.e., …teaches in par. 0035 the following: “The prover sends the response z to the verifier. In response to receiving the response z, the verifier can determine whether the matrix A multiplied by the response z is approximately equal the public vector y plus the commitment a in order to determine whether the prover possesses the secret vector x”);
verifying that the short vector e solves the lattice problem (i.e., …teaches in pars. 0035 & 0036 the following: “
PNG
media_image2.png
294
853
media_image2.png
Greyscale
”).
The system of MASNY does not expressly teach:
at the signer device,
deriving a target vector t from the commitment c;
sampling, using a secret trapdoor function, a short vector e that solves a lattice problem A⋅ e T = u,
u is a polynomial;
and the secret trapdoor function is associated with the public parameter a1 such that for any v ∈ Rqn,
and generating a signature establishing knowledge of the short vector e based on the message and public data.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference LYUBASHEVSKY.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “at the signer device” , LYUBASHEVSKY teaches in par. 0003 the following: “Our solution is for the signer to randomly pick a vector E and an element d with small coefficients, and compute H=(U+mG+c)/d”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “deriving a target vector t from the commitment c”, teaches in par. 0058 the following: “and a target vector uεcustom-character.sup.n”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “sampling, using a secret trapdoor function, a short vector e that solves a lattice problem A⋅ e T = u”, “, LYUBASHEVSKY teaches in par. 0058 the following: “sample a vector sεcustom-character.sup.m such that As=u mod q and s is distributed according to some distribution that is independent of any “trapdoor” basis that we may know for custom-character.sup.⊥(A).”. Further teaches in par. 0058 the following: “We can do this by using a trapdoor basis B for custom-character.sup.⊥(A) as follows: first find an arbitrary integer vector r such that Ar=u mod q. Then sample a v˜custom-character and set s=v+r. Note that As=u mod q (since Av=0 mod q). Also s˜D.sub.Z.sub.m.sub.,0,σ conditioned on As=u mod q. We define the distribution D.sup.⊥.sub.A,u,σ to be exactly the above distribution. We say that s˜D.sup.⊥.sub.A,u,σ if s is distributed according to Dcustom-character.sub.m.sub.0,σ conditioned on As=u mod q. Such an s can be generated using a basis B for custom-character.sup.⊥(A) for any σ>∥{tilde over (B)}∥ using the procedure above.”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation elements of, “u is a polynomial”, LYUBASHEVSKY teaches in par. 0053 the following: “The elements of this ring are polynomials”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “and the secret trapdoor function is associated with the public parameter a1 such that for any v ∈ Rqn,”, LYUBASHEVSKY teaches in par. 0058 the following: “a target vector uεcustom-character.sup.n, to sample a vector sεcustom-character.sup.m such that As=u mod q and s is distributed according to some distribution that is independent of any “trapdoor” basis that we may know for custom-character.sup.⊥(A). We can do this by using a trapdoor basis B for custom-character.sup.⊥(A) as follows: first find an arbitrary integer vector r such that Ar=u mod q. Then sample a v˜custom-character and set s=v+r. Note that As=u mod q (since Av=0 mod q). Also s˜D.sub.Z.sub.m.sub.,0,σ conditioned on As=u mod q”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “and generating a signature establishing knowledge of the short vector e based on the message and public data”, LYUBASHEVSKY teaches in par. 0051 the following: “By the properties of our encryption scheme, the value obtained by the opener (i.e. m′/c.sup.i for some i) will be unique and because w is a commitment to m, it is also equal to m/c′ from (4). Hence the opener will obtain the same identity as can be extracted from the proof of knowledge.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of MASNY with the teachings of LYUBASHEVSKY by having their system comprise an enhanced verification process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to control data integrity, wherein the enhanced verification process helps facilitate data security within the network and makes it easier to configure network communication for verification.
As to claim 2, the system of MASNY and LYUBASHEVSKY as applied to claim 1 above teaches message integrity, specifically MASNY does not expressly teach a computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the generation of the commitment c comprises: generating a hash h of the message;
and generating a commitment c based on the hash h and the random data r.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference LYUBASHEVSKY.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “generating a hash h of the message”, teaches in par. 0068 the following: “the message μ gets added to the input of the cryptographic hash function H”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element “generating a commitment c based on the hash h and the random data r”, teaches in par. 0050 the following: “Note that the w part of the ciphertext in (1) can be thought of as a commitment to m.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of MASNY with the teachings of LYUBASHEVSKY by having their system comprise an enhanced verification process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to control data integrity, wherein the enhanced verification process helps facilitate data security within the network and makes it easier to configure network communication for verification.
As to claim 3 the system of MASNY and LYUBASHEVSKY as applied to claim 1 above teaches message integrity, specifically MASNY does not expressly teach a computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the commitment c is of the form:
PNG
media_image3.png
100
310
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where h is the hash of the message and
PNG
media_image4.png
180
430
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference LYUBASHEVSKY.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element, wherein the commitment c is of the form:
PNG
media_image3.png
100
310
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where h is the hash of the message and
PNG
media_image4.png
180
430
media_image4.png
Greyscale
”, teaches in par. 9951 the following: “
PNG
media_image5.png
264
1297
media_image5.png
Greyscale
”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of MASNY with the teachings of LYUBASHEVSKY by having their system comprise an enhanced verification process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to control data integrity, wherein the enhanced verification process helps facilitate data security within the network and makes it easier to configure network communication for verification.
As to claim 4, the system of MASNY and LYUBASHEVSKY as applied to claim 2 above teaches message integrity, specifically MASNY does not expressly teach a computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising generating a first non-interactive-zero-knowledge proof establishing knowledge of the hash h and the random data r.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference LYUBASHEVSKY.
Teaches in par.0032 the following: “the proof Hi is a non-interactive (NI) proof, i.e. a proof the generation of which does not require interaction with a verifier).”. Teaches in par. 0065 the following: “where H is a cryptographic hash function modeled as a random oracle that maps {0, 1}* to C. For efficiency reasons, the range of H should consist of polynomials with small norms. The prover then computes Z=Sc+Y. For the purpose of zero-knowledge, he needs to do rejection sampling that will make the distribution of Z independent of S (we do not concern ourselves with the particulars of this step—we just use the results of [Lyu12] as a black box). Note that because S, c and Y have small lengths, so does Z. The output of the prover is (Z, c). The verifier accepts if ∥Z∥<12.Math.√{square root over (ln)}.Math.S.Math.C and c=H(AZ−Uc, U).”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of MASNY with the teachings of LYUBASHEVSKY by having their system comprise an enhanced verification process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to control data integrity, wherein the enhanced verification process helps facilitate data security within the network and makes it easier to configure network communication for verification.
As to claim 5, the system of MASNY and LYUBASHEVSKY as applied to claim 3 above teaches message integrity, specifically MASNY does not expressly teaches a method of claim 3, wherein the target vector t corresponds to the lowest k rows of the commitment.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference LYUBASHEVSKY.
Teaches in par. 0058 the following: “and a target vector uεcustom-character.sup.n”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of MASNY with the teachings of LYUBASHEVSKY by having their system comprise an enhanced verification process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to control data integrity, wherein the enhanced verification process helps facilitate data security within the network and makes it easier to configure network communication for verification.
As to claim 6, the system of MASNY and LYUBASHEVSKY as applied to claim 1 above teaches message integrity, specifically MASNY does not expressly teach a method of claim 1, wherein the lattice problem is of the form:
PNG
media_image6.png
93
415
media_image6.png
Greyscale
where a2 is a public parameter.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference LYUBASHEVSKY.
Teaches in par. 0094 the following: “
PNG
media_image7.png
147
493
media_image7.png
Greyscale
”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of MASNY with the teachings of LYUBASHEVSKY by having their system comprise an enhanced verification process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to control data integrity, wherein the enhanced verification process helps facilitate data security within the network and makes it easier to configure network communication for verification.
As to claim 7, the system of MASNY and LYUBASHEVSKY as applied to claim 6 above teaches message integrity, specifically MASNY does not expressly teach a method of claim 6, wherein the signer device provides information μ for to accompany the message m, and for the righthand side of the lattice problem u = u’ – H(μ) where u’ is a polynomial.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference LYUBASHEVSKY.
Teaches in par. 0094 the following: “
PNG
media_image8.png
195
628
media_image8.png
Greyscale
”. Futher teaches in par. 0095 the following: “
PNG
media_image9.png
124
592
media_image9.png
Greyscale
”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of MASNY with the teachings of LYUBASHEVSKY by having their system comprise an enhanced verification process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to control data integrity, wherein the enhanced verification process helps facilitate data security within the network and makes it easier to configure network communication for verification.
As to claim 8, the system of MASNY and LYUBASHEVSKY as applied to claim 1 above teaches message integrity, specifically MASNY does not expressly teach a method of claim 1, wherein establishing knowledge of the short vector e based on the message m and public data comprises generating a second non-interactive-zero-knowledge proof.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference LYUBASHEVSKY.
LYUBASHEVSKY teaches in par. 0107 the following: “generates a proof Π.sub.2 comprising that challenge c.sup.i and a zero-knowledge proof of plaintext knowledge of the message m encrypted in the ciphertext u. In step 74, the user computer sends the ciphertext u and a proof Π.sub.2, comprising the l proofs Π.sub.2.sup.i, to a verifier computer 4.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of MASNY with the teachings of LYUBASHEVSKY by having their system comprise an enhanced verification process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to control data integrity, wherein the enhanced verification process helps facilitate data security within the network and makes it easier to configure network communication for verification.
As to claim 9, the system of MASNY and LYUBASHEVSKY as applied to claim 8 above teaches message integrity, specifically MASNY does not expressly teach a method of claim 8, wherein establishing the non-interactive-zero-knowledge proof comprises recasting the lattice problem equation into the form:
PNG
media_image10.png
61
262
media_image10.png
Greyscale
where ã is derivable from the message and the public data, wherein the non-interactive-zero-knowledge-proof establishes knowledge of ẽ from the message m and the public data.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference LYUBASHEVSKY.
Teaches in par. 0095 the following: “
PNG
media_image11.png
133
628
media_image11.png
Greyscale
”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of MASNY with the teachings of LYUBASHEVSKY by having their system comprise an enhanced verification process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to control data integrity, wherein the enhanced verification process helps facilitate data security within the network and makes it easier to configure network communication for verification.
As to claim 10, MASNY teaches a user device configured to:
process a message m and random data r to generate a commitment c for the message m (i.e. …teaches in par. 0040 the following: “Entity 2 can receive A and pk from Entity 1. At block 112, Entity 2 can choose a random value vector r, where …. At block 114, Entity 2 can generate a message m, which can be, for example, a random nonce”);
transmit the commitment c to a signer device (i.e. …teaches in par. 0033 the following: “sends the commitment”);
verify that the short vector e solves a lattice problem (i.e., …teaches in par. 0035 the following: “In response to receiving the response z, the verifier can determine whether the matrix A multiplied by the response z is approximately equal the public vector y plus the commitment a in order to determine whether the prover possesses the secret vector x”).
The system of MASNY does not expressly teach:
in response to the transmission of the commitment c, receive a short vector e from the signer device;
and generate a signature establishing knowledge of the short vector e based on the message m and public data.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference LYUBASHEVSKY.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “in response to the transmission of the commitment c, receive a short vector e from the signer device” , LYUBASHEVSKY teaches in par. 0003 the following: “Our solution is for the signer to randomly pick a vector E and an element d with small coefficients, and compute H=(U+mG+c)/d”. Teaches in par. 0058 the following: “and a target vector uεcustom-character.sup.n”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “and generate a signature establishing knowledge of the short vector e based on the message m and public data”, LYUBASHEVSKY teaches in par. 0051 the following: “By the properties of our encryption scheme, the value obtained by the opener (i.e. m′/c.sup.i for some i) will be unique and because w is a commitment to m, it is also equal to m/c′ from (4). Hence the opener will obtain the same identity as can be extracted from the proof of knowledge.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of MASNY with the teachings of LYUBASHEVSKY by having their system comprise an enhanced verification process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to control data integrity, wherein the enhanced verification process helps facilitate data security within the network and makes it easier to configure network communication for verification.
As to claim 11, the system of MASNY and LYUBASHEVSKY as applied to claim 10 above teaches message integrity, specifically MASNY does not expressly teach a user device according to claim 10, wherein the generation of the commitment comprises:
generating a hash (h) of the message;
and generating a commitment based on the hash and random data,
wherein the commitment is of the form:
PNG
media_image12.png
100
300
media_image12.png
Greyscale
where r1 … rk are random parameters derived from the random data (r), h is the hash of the message, g is a gadget vector and
PNG
media_image13.png
169
409
media_image13.png
Greyscale
and wherein the target vector corresponds to the lowest k rows of the commitment.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference LYUBASHEVSKY.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “generating a hash h of the message”, LYUBASHEVSKY teaches in par. 0068 the following: “the message μ gets added to the input of the cryptographic hash function H”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element “generating a commitment c based on the hash h and the random data r”, LYUBASHEVSKY teaches in par. 0050 the following: “Note that the w part of the ciphertext in (1) can be thought of as a commitment to m.”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “wherein the commitment is of the form:
PNG
media_image12.png
100
300
media_image12.png
Greyscale
where r1 … rk are random parameters derived from the random data (r), h is the hash of the message, g is a gadget vector and
PNG
media_image13.png
169
409
media_image13.png
Greyscale
”, LYUBASHEVSKY teaches in par. 0084 the following: “
PNG
media_image14.png
210
490
media_image14.png
Greyscale
” and LYUBASHEVSKY teaches in par. 0044 the following: “
PNG
media_image15.png
187
495
media_image15.png
Greyscale
”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “wherein the target vector corresponds to the lowest k rows of the commitment”, LYUBASHEVSKY teaches in par. 0058 the following: “and a target vector uεcustom-character.sup.n, to sample a vector sεcustom-character.sup.m such that As=u mod q and s is distributed according to some distribution that is independent of any “trapdoor” basis that we may know for custom-character.sup.⊥(A).”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of MASNY with the teachings of LYUBASHEVSKY by having their system comprise an enhanced verification process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to control data integrity, wherein the enhanced verification process helps facilitate data security within the network and makes it easier to configure network communication for verification.
As to claim 12, the system of MASNY and LYUBASHEVSKY as applied to claim 1 above teaches message integrity, specifically MASNY does not expressly teach a user device of claim 11, wherein the lattice problem is of the form:
PNG
media_image16.png
93
408
media_image16.png
Greyscale
where a1 and a2 are public parameters, e is the short vector, t is a target vector, u is public random data and B is a fixed bounding value.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference LYUBASHEVSKY.
LYUBASHEVSKY teaches in par. 0095 the following: “
PNG
media_image11.png
133
628
media_image11.png
Greyscale
”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of MASNY with the teachings of LYUBASHEVSKY by having their system comprise an enhanced verification process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to control data integrity, wherein the enhanced verification process helps facilitate data security within the network and makes it easier to configure network communication for verification.
As to claim 13, the system of MASNY and LYUBASHEVSKY as applied to claim 10 above teaches message integrity, specifically MASNY does not expressly teach a user device of claim 10, wherein generating the signature comprises establishing a non-interactive-zero-knowledge proof establishing knowledge of the short vector based on the message and public data.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference LYUBASHEVSKY.
LYUBASHEVSKY teaches in par. 0064 the following: “the signing algorithm is also an implicit proof of knowledge of the following: For a matrix AεR.sup.k×l and a vector UεR.sup.k for which there exists an S with s.sub.1(S)≦S such that AS=U, it is possible to produce a proof of knowledge of S, c such that”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of MASNY with the teachings of LYUBASHEVSKY by having their system comprise an enhanced verification process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to control data integrity, wherein the enhanced verification process helps facilitate data security within the network and makes it easier to configure network communication for verification.
As to claim 14, the system of MASNY and LYUBASHEVSKY as applied to claim 13 above teaches message integrity, specifically MASNY does not expressly teach a user device of claim 13, wherein establishing the non-interactive-zero-knowledge proof comprises recasting the lattice problem equation into the form:
PNG
media_image17.png
78
241
media_image17.png
Greyscale
where ã is derivable from the message and the public data, wherein the non-interactive-zero-knowledge-proof establishes knowledge of ẽ from the message and the public data.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference LYUBASHEVSKY.
Teaches in par. 0095 the following: “
PNG
media_image11.png
133
628
media_image11.png
Greyscale
”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of MASNY with the teachings of LYUBASHEVSKY by having their system comprise an enhanced verification process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to control data integrity, wherein the enhanced verification process helps facilitate data security within the network and makes it easier to configure network communication for verification.
As to claim 16, the system of MASNY and LYUBASHEVSKY as applied to claim 15 above teaches message integrity, specifically MASNY does not expressly teach a device of claim 15, wherein the device is configured to provide information μ to accompany the message m, and the righthand side of the lattice problem is of the form u – H(μ).
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference LYUBASHEVSKY.
Teaches in par. 0094 the following: “
PNG
media_image8.png
195
628
media_image8.png
Greyscale
”. Futher teaches in par. 0095 the following: “
PNG
media_image9.png
124
592
media_image9.png
Greyscale
”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of MASNY with the teachings of LYUBASHEVSKY by having their system comprise an enhanced verification process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to control data integrity, wherein the enhanced verification process helps facilitate data security within the network and makes it easier to configure network communication for verification.
Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: LI (CN 115529134) and Hoffstein et al. (US Patent No. 6,959,085).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN F WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-3826.
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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. 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.
/BRYAN F WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights