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 office action is in response to the communication filed on 2/24/2025.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS statement has been filed in this application.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains phrases which can be implied (i.e. “is provided”). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “using segments from a provided master key, creating first and second cryptographic spaces;”. It is not clear whether the creating uses the segments, or whether these are two separate unrelated steps.
Claim 12 recites “the first cryptographic spacer” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 15 recites “for steps one, two, three, and four”. It is not clear whether these are meant to refer to the claimed “step one”, “step two”, “step three”, and “step four” of claim 12, or whether these are meant to be different distinct steps.
Claim 19 recites “steps one through four”. It is not clear whether these are meant to refer to the claimed “step one”, “step two”, “step three”, and “step four” of claim 12, or whether these are meant to be different distinct steps.
All rejected dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon one of the above addressed claims.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an entanglement process which can be performed entirely mentally or with pencil and paper (i.e. a mental process). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims are directed entirely to the mental process and do not recite anything more than the steps that can be performed mentally. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not include additional elements. The claims are directed only to the mental process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Samid (US Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0331624).
Regarding claim 1, Samid disclosed a format preserving entanglement process, the method comprising:
using segments from a provided master key, creating first and second cryptographic spaces (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example);
generating, using the first and second cryptographic spaces and two helper keys derived from the provided master key, cipher texts from an input plaintext (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example); and
encrypting the cipher texts to form encrypted cipher texts (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example), wherein:
the cipher texts are entangled variations of the input plaintext (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example); and
the first and second cryptographic spaces contain a plurality of characters, including characters from the input plaintext (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example).
Regarding claim 2, Samid disclosed that the first and second cryptographic spaces are dynamic cryptographic spaces represented by respective multi-dimensional spaces (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example).
Regarding claim 3, Samid disclosed that the multi-dimensional spaces are represented by three-dimensional cubes (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example).
Regarding claim 4, Samid disclosed that the multi-dimensional spaces are tesseracts (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example).
Regarding claim 5, Samid disclosed that generating the cipher texts comprises in part:
identifying, in a first step, a character from the input plaintext on the first cryptographic space, the character having corresponding coordinates in the first cryptographic space (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example);
mapping, in a second step, the coordinates from the identified character in the first cryptographic space onto the second cryptographic space to identify a character on the second cryptographic space (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example);
mapping, in a third step, the identified character from the second cryptographic space onto the first cryptographic space (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example);
identifying, in a fourth step, coordinates in the first cryptographic space of the mapped character (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example); and
repeating the first, second, third, and fourth steps for remaining characters of the input plaintext for a fixed number of times, a variable number of times, or until a repetition of characters in the first or second cryptographic spaces occurs (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example).
Regarding claim 6, Samid disclosed that the coordinates of the character from the input plaintext in the first cryptographic space are different from those of the mapped character in the first cryptographic space (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example).
Regarding claim 7, Samid disclosed that repeating the first, second, third, and fourth steps for the remaining characters of the input plaintext for the fixed number of times is determined by the two helper keys (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example).
Regarding claim 8, Samid disclosed that repeating the first, second, third, and fourth steps for the remaining characters of the input plaintext for the variable number of times is based at least on a summation or concatenation of the coordinates of the mapped character in the first cryptographic space in the fourth step (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example).
Regarding claim 9, Samid disclosed that repeating the first, second, third, and fourth steps for the remaining characters of the input plaintext for the fixed number of times is determined by one of the two helper keys (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example).
Regarding claim 10, Samid disclosed that the character from the input plaintext on the first cryptographic space in the first step corresponds to the first character from the input plaintext (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example).
Regarding claim 11, Samid disclosed that repeating the third and fourth steps for the remaining characters of the input plaintext for the fixed number of times is determined by one of the two helper keys (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example).
Regarding claim 12, Samid disclosed a format preserving entanglement process, the method comprising:
using segments from a provided master key, creating first and second cryptographic spaces (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example);
generating, using the first and second cryptographic spaces, cipher texts from an input plaintext, the first and second cryptographic spaces containing a plurality of characters, including characters from the input plaintext (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example); and
encrypting the cipher texts to form encrypted cipher texts (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example),
wherein generating the cipher texts comprises in part:
identifying, in a first step, a first character from the input plaintext on the first cryptographic space, the first character having corresponding first coordinates in the first cryptographic space (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example);
mapping, in a second step, the first coordinates from the first cryptographic space onto the second cryptographic space to identify a second character on the second cryptographic space (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example); and
mapping, in a third step, the second character from the second cryptographic space onto the first cryptographic spacer (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example); and
identifying, in a fourth step, second coordinates in the first cryptographic space for the mapped second character (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example).
Regarding claim 13, Samid disclosed that the second character represents the first character in a format preserving token (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example).
Regarding claim 14, Samid disclosed that the first and second coordinates are different from each other (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example).
Regarding claim 15, Samid disclosed summing or concatenating the second coordinates to obtain a number of repetitions required for steps one, two, three, and four when using a last character from the input plaintext (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example).
Regarding claim 16, Samid disclosed that the first, second, third, and fourth steps are repeated for remaining characters of the input plaintext for a variable number of times based at least on a summation or concatenation of the second coordinates of the mapped second character in the fourth step (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example).
Regarding claim 17, Samid disclosed that the multi-dimensional spaces correspond to three-dimensional cubes having faces F1 through F6, with each face comprising rows R1 through R3 and columns C1 through C3 (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example).
Regarding claim 18, Samid disclosed that the multi-dimensional spaces are tesseracts (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example).
Regarding claim 19, Samid disclosed that steps one through four are repeated for all the characters of the input plaintext until the characters from the input plaintext are exhausted (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example).
Regarding claim 20, Samid disclosed that using segments from the provided master key to create the first and second cryptographic spaces comprises using a first helper key and a second helper key, the first and second helper keys being segments of the provided master key (Samid Paragraphs 0067-0095 and 0487-0495 for example).
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 have been rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“RDR Cube Cipher an Extension to Vigenere Cipher” described a modification to Vigenere Cipher. Vigenere Cipher is an encrypting method of alphabetic text using different Shift ciphers or additive based on letter of keywords [1]. It works on the set of 26 alphabets; however its scope is not just limited to English alphabets. Being an old method it's been vulnerable to many attacks. The proposed algorithm is to add a new dimension to this traditional method thus increasing its complexity and hence further reducing its vulnerability to different Vigenere Attacks. The keyword also called Encryption key used in Vigenere is used to select different table for encryption accordingly by the communicating parties using a modulus function. The more randomly the Table is varied based on the random selection of tables from a set of table virtually appearing like a cube more unpredictable the Encrypted text becomes hence increasing the complexity of the algorithm further. Different tables also reduces the variances of the characters hence making it more complex to analyze using the already existing Vigenere Analysis Algorithms.
US 2006/0171534 described a method for encrypting messages for secure transmission over the Internet, for decryption by the receiver of such messages. The key used to encode each character of the message changes continually, in response to both its position after encoding the previous character and the identity of the previous character encoded. This continual change in the coding key yields essentially separate codes for every character of the message to be encoded, thereby making it more difficult to break codes imparted in the method described here than had prevailed in previous codes. The key is stored as a four-dimensional array, which is altered every time any character is encoded. If random data is generated and added to the beginning of the plaintext before it is encrypted, this code is capable of encrypting the message using random data unknown to the receiver, in such a way that the receiver can still decrypt the message.
US 2017/0330290 described a system that creates a single use authentication code from (1) predefined unencrypted data from at least one tax form, (2) primary keys, and (3) a secondary key generated from metadata correlated to the input of the unencrypted data, the above elements being used by a data encryption circuit having a polynomial integer encryption (PIE) engine, to generate the authentication code. The authentication code is translated into at least one symbol, using, for example, barcode technology, and applied to a tax document or form or otherwise encoded into electronic documents.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW T HENNING whose telephone number is (571)272-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-3PM 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, William Korzuch can be reached at (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 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.
/MATTHEW T HENNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights