DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1, the claim recites a method comprising a combination of “receiving…”, “sending…”, is a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “receiving, by a loader site from a second computing device, a forwarded request of a third computing device,”; “sending, by the loader site to the third computing device, a persistent service worker configured to initiate a proxy service”; These limitations - recite a mental process – that is a concept which may be performed in the human mind, such as an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Like receiving a request forwarded from a third person, replying back to third person by encoding/encrypting the request. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).) Further “wherein the forwarded request does not satisfy a security condition” could be as “the request” open to everybody does not need any security. But the receiving person regardless of security encode/encrypt the request with pen and paper.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “sending, by the loader site to the third computing device, a persistent service worker configured to initiate a proxy service, the proxy service configured to perform post-quantum custom cryptography”. Performing “post-quantum custom cryptograph” recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The limitation receiving data, determining matching, determining feasibility and simulating at a high level of generality. Therefore, it is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 11 and 21 has similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
Claim 2-7, 10, 12-17, 20, and 23-26 recites the limitations is an insignificant extra solution activity. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see 2106.05(g).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 10-12, 15, 20-22, 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustafa(“Secured proxy re-encryption with post-quantum cryptography for android and its performance bottlenecks”; MSc Research Project; National College of Ireland; Published April, 2022;) in view of SONG(WO 2005069823 A2).
With regards to claim 1, 11, 21, Mustafa discloses, A method of custom cryptography, comprising:
receiving, by a loader site from a second computing device, a [[forwarded]] request of a [[third]] computing device (Section 3.2.4: The application on the other end of this activity diagram initially makes a cloud-based data request. The public cloud storage will be used to download the encrypted data. Now that it requires a decryption key, which the SRS has, this program will ask the SRS for the decryption key.), and
sending, by the loader site to the [[third]] computing device, a persistent service worker configured to initiate a proxy service, the proxy service configured to perform post-quantum custom cryptography (Section 3.2.1; The primary device in the implemented proxy re-encryption must perform the majority of the work. An individual must first register for the app. After that, he may upload any file. The file will be divided into parts of 65 bytes. Then, using the NTRU cryptography encryption key provided by the SRS, each of these parts is encrypted independently). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Mustafa’s method with teaching of SONG in order to achieve centralized security audit for an authentication and authorization and access control system(SONG abstract).
Mustafa does not exclusively but SONG teaches, receiving, by a loader site from a second computing device, a forwarded request, wherein the forwarded request does not satisfy a security condition ([0118]; Initially, the request directly requests access to the URL specified. The Security Proxy Server 712 will check the request and if not authenticated, the server 712 will then forward it to the Authentication Server 713.);
With regards to claim 2, 12, 22, Mustafa further discloses, wherein the post-quantum custom cryptography comprises at least one of: a Quantum Secure Layer (QSL) protocol; a Post-Quantum Transport Layer Security (PQTLS) protocol; a Kyber algorithm; a SABER algorithm; an Enhanced McEliece algorithm; a Random Linear Code Encryption Scheme (RLCE) algorithm; or a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) candidate post-quantum algorithm (Section 2.2.2: The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is holding a competition to establish standards for quantum-proof cryptography. The majority of the remaining competitors use lattice-based encryption. Fully homomorphic lattice-based encryption has been proven to be quantum-proof up until this point.).
With regards to claim 5, 15, 25, Mustafa in view of SONG further discloses, wherein a request received by the second computing device is determined, by a policy manager, not to satisfy the security condition, and wherein the forwarded request is forwarded, by the second computing device, based on the determination of the policy manager (SONG [0118]; Initially, the request directly requests access to the URL specified. The Security Proxy Server 712 will check the request and if not authenticated, the server 712 will then forward it to the Authentication Server 713.).
With regards to claim 10, 20, 26 Examiner taking OFFICIAL NOTICE that “ wherein the persistent service worker is further configured to: determine whether a session associated with the persistent service worker remains active; and responsive to the session being inactive, reestablish the session” is not an inventive step and well known in the art.
Claim(s) 3-4, 13-14, 23-24, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustafa(“Secured proxy re-encryption with post-quantum cryptography for android and its performance bottlenecks”; MSc Research Project; National College of Ireland; Published April, 2022;) in view of SONG(WO 2005069823 A2) and further in view of Kamran et al(US 20140207566 A1)
With regards to claim 3, 13, 23, Mustafa in view of SONG do not but Kamran teaches, wherein the persistent service worker is configured to persist from a first browser session to a subsequent browser session of the third computing device ([0003] Methods and systems for the identification of electronic devices between web browser and native application sessions is disclosed. The identification process can function even with interrupted Internet connectivity. A first web browser session establishes a web service connection between an electronic device and a web service system. The web service system delivers a unique token to store on the electronic device in the first web browser session. Subsequent web browser sessions with the web service system can renew storage caches of the unique token and/or make duplicates of information stored on the unique token. Then an upcoming application session can capture the same unique token from a second web browser session with a local web service.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Mustafa in view of SONG’s method with teaching of Kamran in order to accurately identify session from token (Kamran abstract).
With regards to claim 4, 14, 24, Mustafa in view of SONG and Kamran teaches, wherein the persistent service worker comprises at least one of a web worker or script instructions (Kamran [0013] FIG. 9 illustrates an example of a method of a web browser, such as the browser 110 of FIG. 1, requesting a token file URL and loading the unique token contents either from a local cache or its actual remote origin.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9, 16-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20220006835 A1 CN 120785565 A
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED WALIULLAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7987. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 to 430 PM.
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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached at 1-571-272-8878. 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.
/MOHAMMED WALIULLAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498
Prosecution Insights