DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 are pending and have been examined.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: configured to perform in claims 1-14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. There does not appear to be a corresponding structure.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
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 1-16 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Claim 2 seems to transmit the encrypted key (from claim 1) to another device, while the specification seems to encrypt it with a local key.
There are multiple instances of “a packet” and then “the packet”, “a network interface” and then “the network interface” making it indefinite which packet, network interface is intended to be referenced.
There are instances of “transfer destination”, “destination information”, and “transmission destination” that appear to be used interchangeably making it indefinite if intended to be the same “transfer destination” or different destinations.
There are instances of “an information processing device”, “the device”, “another …device”, and “the other…device” making it indefinite which device is which.
Claims 1-16 recite the limitations "the first encryption key", "the identified first encryption key", making it indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
This is not intended to be a complete list of such indefiniteness issues.
The dependent claims included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving and decrypting information.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they are broad enough to cover receiving and decrypting information in the mind or with pen/paper, other than the generic computer components.
Regarding Prong One, these steps, as drafted, form a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen/paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “device” and “network”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “a device” language, the claim encompasses a user receiving and decrypting information (short strings) as introduction to elementary encryption classes are taught.
Regarding Prong Two, there are no additional element(s) or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims only use generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process and are not patent eligible.
The claims are directed to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as evidenced by the “background of the invention” section and the cited references.
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 1-6 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeuchi (20050078826).
Regarding claims 1 and 15-16, Takeuchi teaches An information processing device that relays a second encryption key encrypted with a first encryption key shared between opposing quantum key distribution (QKD) devices included in a QKD network, the information processing device comprising: one or more processors configured to perform: a first processing module configured to / An information processing method executed by an information processing device that relays a second encryption key encrypted with a first encryption key shared between opposing quantum key distribution (QKD) devices included in a QKD network, the information processing method comprising: / A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium including programmed instructions, the instructions causing an information processing device that relays a second encryption key encrypted with a first encryption key shared between opposing quantum key distribution (QKD) devices included in a QKD network to (abstract, par.49-68):
control, after determining a transfer destination of a received packet, execution of decryption of the encrypted second encryption key included in the packet (par.59-70, encrypt key and relay to device, if intended destination, decrypt encrypted key).
Regarding claim 2, Takeuchi teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to perform a second processing module configured to perform a transmission process of transmitting a packet including the encrypted second encryption key to another information processing device via a network interface (IF) (par.51-58).
Regarding claim 3, Takeuchi teaches wherein when the transfer destination is the other information processing device, the first processing module is configured to identify a network IF used for transmitting the packet from destination information included in the packet, identify the first encryption key used for encryption from the network IF used for transmitting the packet, and control execution of encryption of the second encryption key with the identified first encryption key before the transmission process by the second processing module (par.51-58).
Regarding claim 4, Takeuchi teaches wherein after determining the transfer destination of the received packet, the first processing module is configured to identify a network IF used for receiving the packet, identify a first decryption key used for decryption from the network IF used for receiving the packet, control execution of decryption of the second encryption key with the identified first decryption key, and then control execution of encryption of the second encryption key with the first encryption key before the transmission process by the second processing module (par.51-58).
Regarding claim 5, Takeuchi teaches wherein when the transfer destination is the other information processing device, the first processing module is configured to: identify a network IF used for transmitting the packet from destination information included in the packet, identify the first encryption key used for encryption from the network IF used for transmitting the packet, and control execution of encryption of the second encryption key with the identified first encryption key; and then identify a network IF used for receiving the packet, identify a first decryption key used for decryption from the network IF used for receiving the packet, and control execution of decryption of the second encryption key with the identified first decryption key before the transmission process by the second processing module (par.51-63).
Regarding claim 6, Takeuchi teaches wherein when the transfer destination is the other information processing device, the first processing module is configured to: identify a network IF used for receiving the packet, and identify a first decryption key used for decryption from the network IF used for receiving the packet; identify a network IF to be used for transmitting the packet from destination information included in the packet, and identify the first encryption key to be used for encryption from the network IF to be used for transmitting the packet; generate a third encryption key from the identified first decryption key and the identified first encryption key; and control simultaneous execution of decryption and encryption of the second encryption key with the third encryption key before the transmission process by the second processing module (par.51-63).
Regarding claim 13, Takeuchi teaches A quantum cryptographic communication system comprising: the information processing device according to claim 1; and a QKD device configured to provide the first encryption key to the information processing device (par.59-70).
Regarding claim 14, Takeuchi teaches another information processing device configured to receive a packet transmitted from said first mentioned information processing device (par.59-70).
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.
Claims 7-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi, and further in view of Lazar (20230205936).
Regarding claim 7, Takeuchi does not expressly disclose, however, Lazar teaches wherein when the transfer destination is the other information processing device, the first processing module is configured to perform a decryption process and an encryption process by using a packet transfer hook function in iptables or nftables (par.32-36).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takeuchi to process encryption/decryption as taught by Lazar.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to more efficiently provide cryptographic services (Lazar, par.2-3, 10-18).
Regarding claim 8, Takeuchi does not expressly disclose, however, Lazar teaches wherein when the transfer destination is the own device, the first processing module is configured to perform an input process of storing the decrypted second encryption key in a storage device after controlling execution of decryption of the encrypted second encryption key included in the packet (figs.1-3, par.25-36).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takeuchi to process encryption/decryption as taught by Lazar.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to more efficiently provide cryptographic services (Lazar, par.2-3, 10-18).
Regarding claim 9, Takeuchi/Lazar teaches wherein the first processing module is configured to perform the input process by using an input hook function in iptables or nftables (par.32-36).
Regarding claim 11, Takeuchi does not expressly disclose, however, Lazar teaches wherein the first processing module is configured to perform the output process by using an output hook function in iptables or nftables (par.32-36).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takeuchi to process encryption/decryption as taught by Lazar.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to more efficiently provide cryptographic services (Lazar, par.2-3, 10-18).
Regarding claim 12, Takeuchi does not expressly disclose, however, Lazar teaches wherein the first processing module is configured to determine a packet to be subjected to a decryption process or an encryption process based on filter setting by iptables or nftables (par.32-36).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takeuchi to process encryption/decryption as taught by Lazar.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to more efficiently provide cryptographic services (Lazar, par.2-3, 10-18).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi, and further in view of Tanizawa (20160285629).
Regarding claim 10, Takeuchi does not expressly disclose, however, Tamizawa teaches a random number generator configured to generate a random number indicating the second encryption key, wherein when transmitting the second encryption key generated by the random number generator to the other information processing device, the first processing module is configured to perform an output process of controlling execution of encryption of the second encryption key generated by the random number generator after determining a transmission destination of the packet including the second encryption key generated by the random number generator and before the transmission process by the second processing module (par.153-165).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takeuchi to use keys and random numbers as taught by Tanizawa.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to further protect key distribution (Tanizawa, par.3-8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: the remaining references put forth on the PTO-892 form are directed to quantum cryptography and key distribution, Wells (20230032924), Ko (20220006627), Walenta (20200351086), Hughes (20150222619).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David García Cervetti whose telephone number is (571)272-5861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, HADI S ARMOUCHE can be reached at (571)270-3618. 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.
/David Garcia Cervetti/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights