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 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-22 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 limitation "each transducer" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the number of possible secret internal states" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the terms “sufficiently large” and “infeasible to enumerate”, which are relative terms that render the claim indefinite. The terms “sufficiently large” and “infeasible to enumerate” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the secret internal state" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "known to a configuring entity" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim already recites “a configuring entity” in lines 6 and 7.
Claim 1 recites “the internal state” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the externally provided input value” in line 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the internal state” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “said transducer” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the input internal state” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 further recites the term “a suitable externally provided input value”, which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “suitable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, it’s unclear as to with respect to an entity the term “suitable” applies to (e.g., what is “suitable” to a standard user may not be “suitable” to an IT security expert).
Claim 1 recites “the number of password authentication attempts” in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “the group” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “said secret internal state” and “said transducer” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein said transition function can be expressed…” however the usage of “can be” renders the claim indefinite, as it appears claim 7 as a whole would be considered optional.
Claim 7 recites “the previous internal state of the transducer” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there’s no antecedent basis for “the previous internal state” nor “the transducer”.
Claim 7 further recites the term “and it is infeasible to return the transducer”, which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “infeasible” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the electronic hardware component is configured as a single deterministic finite state transducer” however said implementation of the “electronic hardware component” as only a single “deterministic fine state transducer” appears to contradict the claim 1’s presumption of the “electronic hardware component comprising one or more deterministic finite state transducers, each transducer comprising:”. Thus, it’s unclear how claim 8 would further limit the “electronic hardware component” with the “each transducer” recitation being utilized in claim 1 above.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the allowed number of password authentication attempts” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the same initial secret internal state” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “the previous secret internal state” and “of the corresponding” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites “a cryptographic key” in line 2, however it’s unclear whether this “cryptographic key” refers to the same or a different “a cryptographic key” recited within claim 13.
Claim 15 recites “the cryptographic key” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it’s unclear whether this recitation of “the cryptographic key” refers back to claim 13 or claim 14’s recitation of “a cryptographic key”.
Claim 16 recites “the ciphertext and authentication tag” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites “the decrypted plaintext data” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the allowed number of password authentication attempts” and “the number of ciphertexts” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a corresponding one of the plurality of ciphertexts” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites “a password” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it’s unclear whether “a password” of claim 22 refers back to “a password” of claim 1.
Claim 1’s limitation “means to configure” and claim 2’s limitation “means of running” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the Specification is absent any further description that would place structural limitations for the claimed “means”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
“Yarabolu” (US 2021/0397696).
“Kerametlian” (US 2017/0208075).
“Rose” (US 11392677)
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL B POTRATZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5329. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 A.M. - 6 P.M. CST.
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, William Korzuch can be reached on 571-272-7589. 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.
/DANIEL B POTRATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights