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 action is responsive to claims filed on February 21, 2025. Claim 15 has been canceled. Claims 1-14 and 16-21 are pending and presented for examination.
Authorization for Internet Communication
To expedite prosecution, filing a written authorization for internet communication is recommended. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate using email to schedule interviews and/or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to email communications. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03.
Abstract
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. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. 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.
Examiner's note: The abstract filed on February 21, 2025, is a cover page of an international application. It is recommended to resubmit a replacement abstract according to the above guidelines.
Drawings
While the drawings filed on February 21, 2025, were acceptable, it is recommended to label the various components on the drawings as needed. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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, 7-9, 12, 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al “Maruyama”, US-PGPub. No. 20220239489 in view of Zhang et al “Zhang”, US-PGPub. No. 20220377084.
As per claims 1, 8 and 14, Maruyama teaches a verification method and a prover device (Fig. 1 – user terminal 100, Paragraph(s) [0037]) for generating a zero-knowledge proof (ZKP) of approximate knowledge of a reference location (Paragraph(s) [0049], [0061], [0144]; the control 117 includes an identity proof algorithm generation unit 171, a ZKP-Setup processing unit 172, a Witness input unit 173, a user registration unit 174, a ZKP-Prove processing unit 175, and a key generation unit 176), the prover device comprising a processor (Fig. 1 – ZKP-Prove processing unit 175, Paragraph(s) [0049]) configured to:
obtaining a plurality of reference signals originating from a respective plurality of reference sources and acquired at a test location within observable range of the reference sources (Paragraph(s) [0050], [0057]; the Witness input unit 173 receives an input of Witness of the user of the user terminal 100. The Witness input unit 173 functions as an acquisition unit that acquires Witness that is information that only the user of the user terminal 100 is allowed to know. Examples of the identity proof algorithm include matching between a name and a password, matching between a name and a plurality of secret catchwords, positions of a name and a face image, matching between a name and a fingerprint, and the like);
constructing an initial codeword from the obtained reference signals, the initial codeword forming a representation of the test location (Paragraph(s) [0054]; the ZKP (Zero Knowledge Proof)-Setup processing unit 172 executes a setup process of generating a public parameter for user authentication by zero knowledge proof based on an identity proof algorithm. The ZKP-Setup processing unit 172 functions as a setup processing unit that executes a setup process of generating a public parameter for user authentication by the zero knowledge proof);
applying a hashing operation on the assessment codeword, thereby obtaining a hash value representing the ZKP (Paragraph(s) [0061], [0076]; the Proof generation unit 175b generates a proof for user authentication by the zero knowledge proof based on the polynomial h generated by the WitnessRedution process. The Proof generation unit 175b generates, for example, a result of hashing the polynomial h as a proof. The user terminal 100 receives the user authentication process by the cloud server 200 by transmitting the proof generated by the Proof generation unit 175b to the cloud server 200. Maruyama further teaches the key generation unit 176 encodes and hashes the polynomial h generated by the WitnessReduction process to generate a user secret key (Step S307) to store the generated user secret key in the device (Step S308) (Paragraph [0101])), and
providing the hash value to a verifier device (Fig. 1 – cloud server 200, Paragraph(s) [0038]), to allow the verifier device to compare the hash value with a reference hash value and thereby assess a validity of the ZKP (Paragraph(s) [0071-0072], [0149]; the ZKP-Verify processing unit 233 executes user authentication of the user of the user terminal 100 based on a proof included in the user authentication request received from the user terminal 100. The ZKP-Verify processing unit 233 acquires the public parameter and encrypted Witness associated with the user ID included in the user authentication request from the public parameter management unit 232. The ZKP-Verify processing unit 233 verifies the proof received from the user terminal 100 based on the public parameter and encrypted Witness. Whether the proof is generated by the user of the user terminal 100 is verified. The ZKP-Verify processing unit 233 matches the calculation result based on the public parameter and encrypted Witness with the proof, and verifies whether the proof is generated from the correct polynomial h).
While Maruyama discloses the key generation unit 176 decrypts the encrypted user secret key acquired from the cloud server 200 using the backup secret key regenerated in Step S907 to recover the user secret key (Step S908) (Paragraph [0140]), However, Maruyama fails to expressly teach but Zhang teaches applying a block-based error correction decoding operation (Paragraph [0040]; the verifier device 104 verifies correctness of at least one characterization of data obtained by the client device 102-1 from the given TLS server as part of the secure session, based at least in part on the commitment and the additional information. Such verification is illustratively performed under the control of the proof verification module 116. Zhang further teaches each record is usually padded to a multiple of blocks (e.g., 128 bits). The record protocol then optionally compresses the data, applies a MAC, encrypts, and transmits the result. Received data is decrypted, verified, decompressed, reassembled, and then delivered to higher-level protocols (Paragraph [0096])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicants' invention to incorporate/combine the teachings of Maruyama and Zhang because it provides a more secure method of authenticating a client device while managing and protecting user data.
As per claims 2, 9 and 17, Maruyama teaches wherein applying the block-based error correction decoding operation comprises:
using a block size corresponding to a number of symbols present in the initial codeword that is provided as input to the block-based error correction decoding operation, and using a further block size corresponding to a further number of symbols present in the assessment codeword that is obtained as output from the block-based error correction decoding operation, the further block size being smaller than the block size (Paragraph(s) [0071-0072], [0140]).
As per claims 7 and 12, Maruyama teaches:
obtaining a salt (Paragraph(s) [0106]);
applying the hashing operation on a combination of the assessment codeword with the salt to obtain the hash value (Paragraph(s) [0061], [0106], [0120]), and
providing both the hash value and the salt to the verifier device, to allow the verifier device to generate a reference hash value using the salt and to compare the hash value with the reference hash value (Paragraph(s) [0071-0072], [0149]).
As per claim 16, Maruyama teaches wherein the reference signals are Wi-Fi signals transmitted by a plurality of Wi-Fi signal sources located in a vicinity of the prover device and/or the verifier device; wherein significancy parameters are expressed as a received signal strength indicator, and the identity parameters are expressed as at least one of a service set identifier and a media access control address (Paragraph(s) [0040], [0058], [0065], [0071]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 10 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Additionally, claims 4-6, 11, 13 and 19-21 are objected to as being dependent upon objected to claims. Said objected to claims recite additional feature in which Maruyama alone or in combination with Zhang fail to teach or suggest, such as the feature of wherein the reference signals include respective significancy parameters and respective identity parameters, each of the significancy parameters being indicative of a relative significance of a respective reference signal, and each of the identity parameters being indicative of an identity of a respective reference signal as recited in the context of claims 3, 10 and 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to form PTO-892 (Notice of Reference Cited) for a list of relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A WASEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-2669. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (8:00 am – 4:30 pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Glenton Burgess can be reached on (571)272-3949. 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.
/MOHAMED A. WASEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
