CTNF 19/056,018 CTNF 87333 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 is a reply to the application filed on 7/30/2025, in which, claim(s) 1-14 are pending. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/18/2025, 6/20/2025, 10/10/2025, 12/11/2025, 2/10/2026, 4/27/2026, has been reviewed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner is considering the information disclosure statement. Specification 06-31 AIA The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Drawings The drawings filed on 2/18/2025 is/are accepted by The Examiner. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claim(s) 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,261,949 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Although the claims of the current application are not identical to the parent application; however, it is fully anticipated by the parent application. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-3, 5, 8-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calmon et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0154970 A1; hereinafter Calmon) in view of Jacobs et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0235929 A1; hereinafter Jacobs) . Regarding claims 1 and 8 , Calmon discloses a method of securely communicating a message, the method comprising: receiving, using a first data channel, first data that comprise an encryption of a first portion of an encoding of the message, wherein the encryption comprises [a post-quantum], public-key encryption and the encoding comprises an individually secure code (receiving the encrypted message via communication line 246, in which the data are encrypted, the encryption/decryption using common key [Calmon; ¶36-40, 50-60]). Calmon does not explicilty discloses wherein the encryption comprises a post-quantum encryption; however, in a related and analogous art, Jacobs teaches this feature. In particular, Jacobs teaches using post-quantum public key encryption in the cryptographic system [Jacobs; ¶94]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Calmon in view of Jacobs with the motivation to improve resistant to attacks by an adversary in possession of a quantum computer [Jacobs; ¶94]. receiving, using a second data channel, second data that comprise a second portion of the encoding of the message (receiving the unencrypted message via communication line 244, in which the data are unencrypted [Calmon; ¶36-40, 50-60]); decrypting the first data to obtain the first portion of the encoding of the message (decrypting the encrypted message at decryption circuit 260 to get unencrypted data [Calmon; ¶36-40, 50-60]); and recovering the message by decoding, using the individually secure code, a combination of the decrypted first portion of the encoding with the second portion of the encoding (the decoder circuit 270 code the encoded message of 244 and decrypted message of 262 and combined to create the original data file [Calmon; ¶36-40, 50-60]). Regarding claims 2 and 9 , Calmon-Jacobs combination discloses wherein the first data channel and the second data channel comprise different transmission media (the different message can send over different transmission medium [Calmon; ¶37; Figs. 2A-2B and associated texts]). Regarding claims 3 and 10 , Calmon-Jacobs combination discloses wherein the first data channel and the second data channel comprise different utilization times of a single transmission medium (each communication channel time are different as the function act upon the data are different [Calmon; ¶33, 36-40, 50-60, 62-63]). Regarding claims 5 and 12 , Calmon-Jacobs combination discloses wherein receiving the first message data or receiving the second message data comprises correcting one or more errors (error correction [Calmon; ¶28, 41, 44]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4, 6, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calmon-Jacobs combination in view of Turner et al. (Pub. No.: US 2008/0320104 A1; hereinafter Turner) . Regarding claims 4 and 11 , Calmon-Jacobs combination discloses wherein recovering comprises decoding the unencrypted first and second encodings according to a linear network code (secure linear combination [Calmon; ¶31, 41]). Calmon-Jacobs combination does not explicilty discloses using an individually secure linear code; however, in a related and analogous art, Turner teaches this feature. In particular, Turner teaches encoded/decoded data block based on applying a product of the corresponding data block, particularly produce linear combinations (P) of a prescribed number (n) of data blocks (B) based on applying sets of randomized coefficients (x), where each block of data (B.sub.j) to corresponding matrix [Turner; Abstract; ¶34-36, 45-46; Figs. 4-5 and associate text]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Calmon-Jacobs combination in view of Turner with the motivation to produce a differentially-encoded data block to eliminate the requirements of relying on "make-up" packets to recover the encoded data in the case that a packet was lost [Turner; ¶16]. Regarding claims 6 and 13 , Calmon-Jacobs combination discloses wherein encoding using the individually secure linear code (secure linear combination [Calmon; ¶31, 41]). Calmon-Jacobs combination does not explicilty discloses comprises multiplying the first and second portions of the message by a generator matrix, and decoding using the individually secure linear code comprises multiplying the first and second portions of the encoding by the inverse of the generator matrix; however, in a related and analogous art, Turner teaches this feature. In particular, Turner teaches encoded/decoded data block based on applying a product of the corresponding data block, particularly produce linear combinations (P) of a prescribed number (n) of data blocks (B) based on applying sets of randomized coefficients (x), where each block of data (B.sub.j) to corresponding matrix [Turner; Abstract; ¶34-36, 45-46; Figs. 4-5 and associate text]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Calmon-Jacobs combination in view of Turner with the motivation to produce a differentially-encoded data block to eliminate the requirements of relying on "make-up" packets to recover the encoded data in the case that a packet was lost [Turner; ¶16] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calmon-Jacobs combination in view of Kikuchi et al. (Pub. No.: US 20060015791 A1; hereinafter Kikuchi) Regarding claims 7 and 14 , Calmon-Jacobs-Turner combination discloses wherein the generator matrix is defined using a mathematical field having a characteristic that is larger than 2 Calmon-Turner combination does not explicilty discloses linear code having a characteristic larger than 2 ; however, in a related and analogous art Kikuchi teaches this feature. In particular, Kikuchi teaches receiving a first decoding method of the present invention is characterized by including a low-density processing step for reducing the density of elements whose values are determined to be one, for a check matrix of the linear code, and a decoding step for decoding the linear code through a sum product algorithm by using the check matrix whose density is reduced through the low-density processing step. The ring may be a finite field including powers of prime numbers, as elements. The linear code may include a BCH code, or a Reed-Solomon code on the finite field. A second decoding method of the present invention is characterized by including an input step for inputting a reception value and a decoding step for decoding a linear code through a sum product algorithm, for a check matrix of the linear code, by using the check matrix, where the density of elements whose values are determined to be one is reduced, and the reception value input through the input step [Kikuchi; ¶57-60, 70]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Calmon-Turner combination in view of Kikuchi with the motivation to achieved for easily performing high-performance decoding in the case where a sum product algorithm is used, as a method for decoding an ordinary linear code [Kikuchi; ¶56]. Internet Communications Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http:ljwww.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only : (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAO Q HO whose telephone number is (571)270-5998. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am - 5:00pm. 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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached on (469) 295-9235. 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. /DAO Q HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432 Application/Control Number: 19/056,018 Page 2 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 19/056,018 Page 3 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 19/056,018 Page 4 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 19/056,018 Page 5 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 19/056,018 Page 6 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 19/056,018 Page 7 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 19/056,018 Page 8 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 19/056,018 Page 9 Art Unit: 2432
Prosecution Insights