DETAILED ACTION
Claims 21-40 are pending in this 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 28 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Whelan et al. (US PGPUB No. 2003/0219129) [hereinafter “Whelan”].
As per claim 21, Whelan teaches a computer-implemented method for generating and distributing keys, comprising: generating a first keyset based on a first master key ([0121], generating static keys, i.e. key set, see also [0045], based on a master key from a master key list); distributing the first keyset to a plurality of client devices ([0121], in one embodiment, MU index and key manager distributes static keys to mobile units); receiving, from a key issuer, a rotation key, wherein the rotation key is issued in response to change in a number of the plurality of the client devices ([0098] and Fig. 3, rotation is controlled by selecting an index, i.e. ABCD, which is interpreted to be the rotation key); generating a second keyset based on the first master key and the rotation key ([0121], in one embodiment, MU index and key manager generates new static keys on demand when there is a rotation see [0101]), and distributing the second keyset to the plurality of client devices ([0121], updates to the master key list will result in the generation of new static keys).
As per claim 28, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 21. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 35, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 21. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
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.
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.
Claims 22, 29 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whelan in view of Hohenberger et al. (US PGPUB No. 2008/0059787) [hereinafter “Hohenberger”].
As per claim 22, Whelan teaches the method of claim 21.
Whelan does not explicitly teach wherein the first keyset comprises an encryption key, decryption key, and re-encryption key. Hohenberger wherein the first keyset comprises an encryption key, decryption key, and re-encryption key ([0170], access control server has the key material to encrypt and decrypt the content as well as a re-encryption key to re-encrypt the content for specific clients).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Whelan with the teachings of Hohenberger, wherein the first keyset comprises an encryption key, decryption key, and re-encryption key, to provide a standard and reliable method to produce important key material.
As per claim 29, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 22. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 36, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 22. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 23-24, 30-31 and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whelan in view of Asano et al. (EP-2086160-A1) [hereinafter “Asano”].
As per claim 23, Whelan teaches the method of claim 21.
Whelan does not explicitly teach prior to distributing the first keyset, encrypting the first keyset using an inbox key associated with a client device. Asano teaches prior to distributing the first keyset, encrypting the first keyset using an inbox key associated with a client device ([0106], using a set key to distribute content keys wherein the set could be a single client).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Whelan with the teachings of Asano, prior to distributing the first keyset, encrypting the first keyset using an inbox key associated with a client device, to provide a standard and reliable method to distribute important key material.
As per claim 24, Whelan teaches the method of claim 21.
Whelan does not explicitly teach prior to distributing the second keyset, encrypting the second keyset using an inbox key associated with a client device. Asano teaches prior to distributing the second keyset, encrypting the second keyset using an inbox key associated with a client device ([0106], using a set key to distribute content keys wherein the set could be a single client).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Whelan with the teachings of Asano, prior to distributing the second keyset, encrypting the second keyset using an inbox key associated with a client device, to provide a standard and reliable method to distribute important key material.
As per claim 30, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 23. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 31, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 24. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 37, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 23. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 38, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 24. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 25, 32 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whelan in view of Yasumatsu et al. (JP-2000090115-A) [hereinafter “Yasumatsu”].
As per claim 25, Whelan teaches the method of claim 21.
Whelan does not explicitly teach wherein the first keyset further comprises a search key. Yasumatsu teaches wherein the first keyset further comprises a search key ([0003], hash values used as indexes for fast-searching of large documents).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Whelan with the teachings of Yasumatsu, wherein the first keyset further comprises a search key, to provide a standard and reliable method to produce important key material for faster and more efficient searching.
As per claim 32, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 25. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 39, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 25. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 26-27, 33-34 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whelan in view of Uzun et al. (USPGPUB No. 2015/0270957).
As per claim 26, Whelan teaches the method of claim 21 as well as generating the first master key. See rejection of claim 21.
Whelan does not explicitly teach generating using a Proxy Re-Encryption scheme. Uzun teaches generating using a Proxy Re-Encryption scheme ([0047], proxy re-encryption scheme).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Whelan with the teachings of Uzun, generating using a Proxy Re-Encryption scheme, to provide a standard and reliable method to produce important key material.
As per claim 27, Whelan teaches the method of claim 21, as well as generating the second keyset. See rejection of claim 21.
Whelan does not explicitly teach generating using a Proxy Re-Encryption scheme. Uzun teaches generating using a Proxy Re-Encryption scheme ([0047], proxy re-encryption schem).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Whelan with the teachings of Uzun, generating using a Proxy Re-Encryption scheme, to provide a standard and reliable method to produce important key material.
As per claim 33, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 26. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 34, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 27. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 40, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 26. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tanaka et al. (US PGPUB No. 2014/0143537), Vald et al. (US PGPUB No. 2022/0052840), Mori et al. (US PGPUB No. 2018/0026785), Lv et al. ("Key distribution for heterogeneous public-key cryptosystems," in Journal of Communications and Networks, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 464-468, Oct. 2013, doi: 10.1109/JCN.2013.000085), Bjorkqvist et al. ("Scalable Key Management for Distributed Cloud Storage," 2018 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Engineering (IC2E), Orlando, FL, USA, 2018, pp. 250-256, doi: 10.1109/IC2E.2018.00051), Khaing et al. ("Secured Key Distribution Scheme for Cryptographic Key Management System," 2010 International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, Krakow, Poland, 2010, pp. 481-486, doi: 10.1109/ARES.2010.96) and Aswini et al. ("Exploring the Future of Key Management and Authentication in Public Key Infrastructures," 2024 (IC3SE), Gautam Buddha Nagar, India, 2024, pp. 1203-1209, doi: 10.1109/IC3SE62002.2024.10593204) all disclose various features of the claimed invention including secure key distribution to clients using a rotating master key.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER C SHAW whose telephone number is (571)270-7179. The examiner can normally be reached Max Flex.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/PETER C SHAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
August 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights