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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 03/21/2025 was filed before the mailing date of this office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note:
Claim 6 is not a software per se since paragraph [0023] of the Applicant’s Specification teaches that a cryptographic device may be a smartcard, a mobile telephone, a tablet, a personal computer or a smartchip embedded in an identity document such as a passport, or a Hardware Security Module (HSM), which are all hardware components.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a processor (101) configured to …”, and should read, “a processor configured to …”.
Claims 1-2 recite the limitation “… masking value Rand …”, in multiple lines in the claims, and claim 3 recites the limitation “… the masking value (Rand) …”. Applicant needs to edit the “… masking value Rand …” in claims 1-2 as “… masking value (Rand) …” as in claim 3, or edit the “… the masking value (Rand) …” in claim 3 to recite “… the masking value Rand …” as in claims 1-2.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) 1-2 recite(s) “-generating a masking value … (mathematical concept), -additively masking [said] secret key d with said generated masking value … (mathematical concept), -computing a result of said elliptic curve scalar multiplication operation (mathematical concept) …, performing said cryptographic algorithm using said elliptic curve scalar multiplication operation result (mathematical concept).”. The steps of “generating”, “masking” and “computing” fall within the mathematical concepts’ groupings of abstract ideas because they cover pure mathematical calculations, formulas, and algorithms that are not patentable by themselves.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because claims 1-2 do not recite any additional limitations that reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to another technology or technical field. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite the additional elements of “storing (in an accumulator) …” and “retrieving (the contents of the accumulator) …”. The limitations “storing” and “retrieving” are mere data storing and retrieving recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data storing and retrieving, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. Claim 6 further recites generic computer components (i.e., “a processor;” and “at least one first accumulator and a second accumulator”), that when considered individually or in combination with the above abstract idea, do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The Examiner also takes Official Notice regarding the recited “a processor” and “at least one first accumulator and a second accumulator” as being well-known and conventional in the art. Thus, the claims do not integrate the recited judicial exception element into a practical application, and the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
The dependent claim, claim 3, which further limit claim 1, also fail to recite any further limitations that would either integrate the above identified abstract idea into practical application and fail to recite anything which would constitute as significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, claim 3 is also rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 1 above.
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.
Claim 1-3 and 6 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.
Claims 1 and 2 recite the limitation “A method for securing against side channel attacks an execution of a cryptographic process comprising …”. The claim language is not clear (not properly phrased). The Examiner suggests to amend the claims as “A method for securing against side channel attacks via an execution of a cryptographic process comprising …”, or “A method for securing against side channel attacks by an execution of a cryptographic process comprising …” or “A method for securing against side channel attacks
Claim 6 recites the limitation “- a processor (101) configured to execute the steps of claim 1 or claim 2,”. It is not clearly indicated which of the claims the processor is configured to perform. The Applicant can amend the claim based on paragraph [0016] of the Specification which teaches, “- a processor configured to execute the steps of the method according to the first aspect and the second aspect.”, where the “first aspect” and “the second aspect” are mapped to “the method of claim 1” and “the method of claim2”, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHIAS HABTEGEORGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1916. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm ET.
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 R. 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.
/MATTHIAS HABTEGEORGIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2491
