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
The instant application having Application No. 19/093,161 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 of this title, 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 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USP 9,792,143 to Potlapally et al., hereinafter Amazon in view of USP Application Publication 2018/0114012 to Sood et al., hereinafter Sood.
As per claims 1, 8, and 15, Amazon teaches a method comprising:
receiving, at a self-encrypting key management service, a request to perform a cryptographic operation with a key based on data (col. 7, lines 1-5)
obtaining the key from the first secure enclave and the data
performing the cryptographic operation with the key and the data (col. 7, lines 4-5 and col. 8, lines 11-30)
Amazon is silent in explicitly teaching the data is executable code and that it is stored in a second secure enclave. Sood teaches installing and storing executable code in an application enclave (0090). The application enclave is separate from the quoting enclave which holds the key. Therefore, separate enclaves are expressly taught that isolate keys from data/code. The quoting enclave can use the key to sign reports produced by the application enclave (0122 and 0123). Amazon already teaches signing with keys stored in enclaves. The security of separate enclaves could have been incorporated into Amazon with predictable results. The claim is obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art can combine methods known before the effective filing date which produce predictable results.
As per claims 2, 9, and 16, the combined system of Amazon and Sood teaches receiving, at the self-encrypting key management service and from an application, the executable code [Sood: configuration manager sends executable code; 0085], wherein the executable code is associated with the key [Amazon: application associated with customer, customer associated with keys; col. 7, lines 8-10]; allocating the second secure enclave for the executable code [Sood: 0085 and 0090]; and storing the executable code at the second secure enclave [Sood: 0085 and 0092].
As per claim 4, 11, and 18, Amazon teaches obtaining an output of the cryptographic operation; and providing the output to an application (col. 8, lines 25-30).
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amazon and Sood as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of USP Application Publication 2016/0164762 to Reque et al., hereinafter Reque.
As per claims 3, 10, 17, the combined system of Amazon and Sood teaches receiving, from the application, second executable code [Sood: 0085 and 0090]; and storing the second executable code at the second secure enclave (0090). Amazon and Sood are silent in explicitly teaching wherein the request to perform the cryptographic operation comprises an identifier of the executable code. Reque teaches the request to perform the cryptographic operation comprises an identifier of the executable code (0030, 0032). Obviously when a request to operate on data/key comes in there needs to be a way to identify the target of the request. Reque teaches one obvious way to specific the identity of the code on which to invoke. The claim is obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art can combine methods known before the effective filing date which produce predictable results.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amazon and Sood as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of USP Application Publication 2016/0246720 to Pandey et al., hereinafter Pandey.
As per claims 5, 12, and 19, Amazon and Sood are silent in explicitly teaching the executable code is associated with the x86 processor instruction set. Sood is silent is specifying the associated instruction set. Pandey teaches a system wherein the instructions of the executable code is associated with the x86 processor instruction set (0086 and 0087). The x86 processor instruction set was a known type of executable code that could run in enclaves. The claim is obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art can substitute methods known before the effective filing date which produce predictable results.
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amazon and Sood as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of USP 6,975,728 to Eye et al., hereinafter Eye.
As per claims 6, 13, and 20, Amazon and Sood are silent in explicitly teaching the executable code specifies a series of operations to perform a key wrapping function based on a plurality of cryptographic operations using the key and a second key. The combined system of Amazon and Sood teaches that multiple executable protocols can be loaded in the enclave [Sood: 0090]. Eye teaches a secure operation of executable code that specifies a series of operations to perform a key wrapping function based on a plurality of cryptographic operations using the key and a second key (col. 4, lines 16-30). Specifically, the operation could specify a key wrapping function and identify the key to be wrapped and the wrapping key. Amazon already teaches multiple types of cryptographic operations including encrypting. Wrapping a key is an encryption type of operations. The claim is obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art can combine methods known before the effective filing date which produce predictable results.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amazon and Sood as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of USP Application Publication 2015/0121536 to Xing et al., hereinafter Xing.
As per claims 7 and 14, Amazon and Sood are silent in explicitly teaching obtaining the key from the first secure enclave and the executable code from the second secure enclave comprises: generating a first secure enclave key to access data of the first secure enclave; and generating a second secure enclave key to access data of the second secure enclave. Xing teaches generating a first secure enclave key to access data of the first secure enclave [enclave key decrypts encrypted application key]; and generating a second secure enclave key [decrypted application key decrypts application] to access data of the second secure enclave (0054 and 0055). Xing keeps the key and application (code) encrypted. The operation to decrypt and application is based on the encrypted key inside of an enclave. Amazon and Sood already have a system where keys and data are in two separate enclaves. Having a enclave key protect the application key is shown to be a security feature of Xing. Incorporating this level of security into the system of Amazon and Sood would produce a predictable result. The claim is obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art can combine methods known before the effective filing date which produce predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the enclosed PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R. VAUGHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7316. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:30am - 5:30pm, EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. 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.
/MICHAEL R VAUGHAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights