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
This non-final action is responsive to application filed on 12/10/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending, with claims 1, 6 and 11 being independent.
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 1-5 and 11-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “the authentication information is used to perform identity authentication”, however, it is not clear if the authentication information refers to the one with password, or refers to the one with the registration ciphertext and the determining trapdoor. It appears that the authentication information refers to the one with the registration ciphertext and the determining trapdoor.
Claims 2-5 and 12-20, depending on claims 1 and 11, are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1 and 1, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 are allowed. The closest prior arts of record are Ma et al. (npl: Efficient Public Key Encryption With Equality Test Supporting Flexible Authorization), Zeng et al. (npl: Public key encryption with equality test via hash proof system) and Wagner et al. (US 2023/0275766).
Ma et al. teaches that We reformalize and recast the notion of public key encryption with equality test (PKEET), which was proposed in CT-RSA 2010 and supports to check whether two ciphertexts encrypted under different public keys contain the same message. PKEET has many interesting applications, for example, in constructing searchable encryption and partitioning encrypted data. However, the original PKEET scheme lacks an authorization mechanism for a user to control the comparison of its ciphertexts with others’. In this paper, we study the authorization mechanism for PKEET, and propose four types of authorization policies to enhance the privacy of users’ data. We give the definitions of the policies, propose a PKEET scheme supporting these four types of authorization at the same time, and prove its security based on the computational Diffie–Hellman assumption in the random oracle model.
Zeng et al. teaches that Public key encryption with equality test (PKEET) allows a tester to know whether ciphertexts are the encryptions of a same message or not by using the trapdoors issued from their owners, which is a useful cryptographic primitive can be deployed in many applications, such as in the mechanism of searching over encrypted data. Based on Hash Proof System (HPS) introduced by Cramer and Shoup, this paper presents an oversimplified paradigm for constructing PKEET in the standard model. Compared with the previous works that use identity-based encryption, strongly unforgeable one-time signature or other strong cryptographic primitives, our paradigm requires only the universal2 property of HPS and provides an efficient way to obtain concrete PKEET schemes based on different assumptions in the standard model, since HPS has been shown can be easily realized from a board range of NP languages (e.g., DLIN-based, DCR-based, Lattice-based and so on). Moreover, to demonstrate the practicality of the proposed paradigm, we instantiate it based on two kinds of NP languages respectively, one is based on the decisional Diffie Hellman (DDH) assumption, the other one is based on the decisional composite residuosity (DCR) assumption, which results in the first concrete PKEET schemes that in the standard model without using pairing operations, and the schemes’ security are also based on the standard DDH assumption and the standard DCR assumption respectively.
Wagner et al. teaches a method comprises receiving, by an identity network computer, a query set including a plurality of test identity attributes. After receiving the query set, the identity network computer may retrieve derivatives of identity attributes associated with a user, and an encrypted trapdoor, then compute an obscured query set using the query set, and optionally the derivatives of identity attributes. The identity network computer may transmit the obscured query set (i) and the encrypted trapdoor to a user device associated with the user, which generates and transmits a first modified trapdoor and the obscured query set to a relying party computer, or (ii) and a second modified trapdoor to the relying party computer. The relying party computer may thereafter use the obscured query set, and the first modified trapdoor or the second modified trapdoor, to determine if the identity attributes is a member of the query set.
Ma et al., Zeng et al. and Wagner et al. fail to disclose or suggest limitation “performing a hash operation based on at least the password pwd of the first user, to obtain a user key value user_key; obtaining a login ciphertext C.sub.login by using an encryption algorithm and based on the public key pk and the user key value user_key, wherein the encryption algorithm generates a random number and performs encryption based on the random number; obtaining, by using a trapdoor generation algorithm and based on the private key sk and the login ciphertext C.sub.login, a determining trapdoor td.sub.login that matches the login ciphertext C.sub.login; and uploading the login ciphertext C.sub.login and the determining trapdoor td.sub.login to the server, so that the server determines, by using an equality test function and based on a registration ciphertext C.sub.register, a determining trapdoor td.sub.register, the login ciphertext C.sub.login, and the determining trapdoor td.sub.login, whether the first user successfully logs in” in combination with other limitations as recited by the independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHANG DO whose telephone number is (571)270-7837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 5:00 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, RUPAL DHARIA can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/KHANG DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights