DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 05/28/2025. Claims 19-39 are pending and are examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/07/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 19, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 31 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 19 and 27 recite, “wherein at least two of the following elements are configured to processess the first data at least partially in parallel.”. Should be, ”wherein at least two of the following elements are configured to process the first data at least partially in parallel.”.
Claim 25 recites, “wherein the first memory device is configured to store the first data to be sent, unencryted, and the decryped.”. Should be “wherein the first memory device is configured to store the first data to be sent, unencrypted, and the decrypted”.
Claims 28 and 39 recite, “wherein at least two of the following steps run at least partially in parallel or with temporal overlap: the providing, the encrypting, the sending, the receiving, the decrypteding, the storing.”. Should be, ”wherein at least two of the following steps run at least partially in parallel or with temporal overlap: the providing, the encrypted, the sending, the receiving, the decrypting, the storing.”.
Appropriate correction is required.
claim 31 is objected to because, claim 31 depends from claim 30, however claim 31 recites the same exact limitations as claim 30, without reciting any additional limitations to further limit claim 30.
Notes on 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.
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 limitations are: “a first cryptography unit configured to encrypt”, “a second cryptography unit that is configured to decrypt” and “wherein at least two of the following elements are configured to processess the first data at least partially in parallel: the first memory unit, the first cryptography unit, the first communication interface, the second memory unit, the second cryptography unit, and the second communication interface.”, in claims 19 and 27, “the second cryptography unit is configured to encrypt” and “the first cryptography unit is configured to decrypt”, in claim 20, “wherein: (i) at least two of the first memory unit, the first cryptography unit, and the first communication interface and/or (ii) at least two of the second memory unit, the second cryptography unit, and the second communication interface, are configured to process corresponding data at least partially in parallel.” in claim 21, “wherein the first cryptography unit and/or the second cryptography unit, is configured to encrypt and/or decrypt data block by block, without knowledge of an entire message.” in claim 23 and “wherein the first cryptography module and the third cryptography module are configured to encrypt data to be sent and the second cryptography module and the fourth cryptography module are configured to decrypt data received.” in claim 26
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, claims 19-21, 23 and 26-27 are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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 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 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.
Claims 19-27 and 29-38 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding 19-21, 23 and 26-27, the recited limitations “a first cryptography unit configured to encrypt”, “a second cryptography unit that is configured to decrypt” and “wherein the first cryptography module and the third cryptography module are configured to encrypt data to be sent and the second cryptography module and the fourth cryptography module are configured to decrypt data received.”, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is unclear as to the corresponding structure for the “cryptography units” and entirely silent as to the corresponding structure of the of the “cryptography modules”. Therefore, the claims 19-21, 23 and 26-27 are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claims 19-22, 24, 27, 29 and 37, the claims recite the following terms: “the first communication interface” and/or “the second communication interface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these terms in the claim.
Regarding dependent claims 20-26, the dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on their dependency from the rejected claim 19. In addition, claims 22 and 25-26 and claims 31, 33-34 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on their dependency from the rejected claims 20 and 29 respectively.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
Claims 19-39 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17-31 of the copending application No. 19/171,668.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both claiming a common subject matter, “A first computing unit including a first cryptography unit to encrypt data and send it to second computing unit which includes a second cryptography unit to decrypt the received encrypted data and a memory to store the crypted data.”.
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, 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.
Claims 19-21, 23, 27-31, 36 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klapman (U.S Pub No. 2022/0,123,932 A1, referred to as Klapman), in view of Luft et al. (U.S Pub No. 2007/0,153,580 A1, referred to as Luft) and further in view of Shahin et al. (U.S Pub No. 2022/0,343,015 A1, referred to as Shahin).
Regarding claims 19 and 27 Klapman teaches:
A data processing device for a control device (Klapman: Fig. 1; ¶ 0003, “Host computer system 101 further comprises a processor 104 and a volatile memory, such as random-access memory (RAM) 105. Host computer system 101 may be a desktop or laptop computer, a mobile device, or a server in a data centre and may have an operating system, such as Microsoft Windows or Linux installed thereon. Host computer system 101 may also be a virtual machine or a cloud instance or any other computing device. DSD 102 comprises a controller 106”), comprising:
at least a first computing unit and a second computing unit (Klapman: Fig. 2; ¶ 0121, “FIG. 2 illustrates scenario 200, according to an embodiment. Scenario 200 includes a host computer system 201 and a data storage device (DSD) 202 connected to the host computer system 201 via a data link 203, such as Fibre Channel (FC), Serial ATA (SATA), Serial Attached SCSI (SAS), or others”; ¶ 0150, ” For example, there may be two DSDs, where the first DSD generates the private/public key pair and sends only the public key to the second DSD (such as a camera storage card). The second DSD controls the integrated hardware circuitry to encrypt data using the public key and on request, sends the encrypted data to the first DSD (potentially via a host computer system, including a memory card reader). The first DSD can then use the private key to decrypt the data.”);
wherein the first computing unit includes a first memory device configured to provide first data to be sent, a first cryptography unit configured to encrypt the first data to be sent (Klapman: Fig. 2; ¶ 0122; ¶ 0150, ” The second DSD controls the integrated hardware circuitry to encrypt data using the public key and on request, sends the encrypted data to the first DSD (potentially via a host computer system, including a memory card reader)”), and
wherein the second computing unit includes, a second cryptography unit that is configured to decrypt the received encrypted first data, and a second memory device configured to store the decrypted received first data (Klapman: Fig. 2; ¶ 0122; ¶ 0150,” The first DSD can then use the private key to decrypt the data.”).
Klapman does not explicitly disclose, however Luft teaches:
a first serial communication interface configured to send the encrypted first data to be sent from the first computing unit to the second computing unit (Luft: ¶ 0035; ¶ 0070; ¶ 0072, “The personal computer 101 and the USB stick 102 are connected by means of their respective USB interface 103, 111, such that data can be transmitted 119 between them.”; ¶ 0080, “The encrypted data 504 which is to be shifted is transmitted in a shift message, which will be explained in more detail in the following text, from the personal computer 101, in general from the first memory device, to the USB stick 102, in general to the second memory device”);
a second serial communication interface configured to receive the encrypted first data from the first computing unit (Luft: ¶ 0035; ¶ 0071; ¶ 0072; ¶ 0080, “The encrypted data 504 which is to be shifted is transmitted in a shift message, which will be explained in more detail in the following text, from the personal computer 101, in general from the first memory device, to the USB stick 102, in general to the second memory device”).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Klapman by Luft and transmit data between memory devices via serial communication interfaces in order to improve the security of the system in a way an attack on the interfaces is made considerably more difficult, or is even prevented. (Luft: ¶ 0153).
Klapman in view of Luft does not explicitly disclose, however Shahin teaches:
wherein at least two of the following elements are configured to processess the first data at least partially in parallel: the first memory unit, the first cryptography unit, the first communication interface, the second memory unit, the second cryptography unit, and the second communication interface (Shahin: ¶ 0100, “The secure transfer system 110 may perform the operations of the process 1000 in parallel or in different orders, or may perform different steps. For example, the secure transfer system 110 may send 1003 the modified transaction request file to a first destination in parallel to storing 1004 a representation of the untokenized values for each transaction request.”).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Klapman in view of Luft by Shahin and execute a parallel process such as sending the modified transaction request file to a first destination in parallel to storing a representation of the untokenized values for each transaction request in order to achieve a secured transaction transfer. (Shahin: ¶ 0100).
Regarding claims 28 and 39, Klapman teaches:
A method for operating a data processing device for a control unit (Klapman: Fig. 1; ¶ 0003, “Host computer system 101 further comprises a processor 104 and a volatile memory, such as random-access memory (RAM) 105. Host computer system 101 may be a desktop or laptop computer, a mobile device, or a server in a data centre and may have an operating system, such as Microsoft Windows or Linux installed thereon. Host computer system 101 may also be a virtual machine or a cloud instance or any other computing device. DSD 102 comprises a controller 106”), the method comprising the following steps:
(i) performing: providing first data to be sent using a first memory device, encrypting the first data to be sent using a first cryptography unit, sending the encrypted first data (Klapman: Fig. 2; ¶ 0122; ¶ 0150, ” The second DSD controls the integrated hardware circuitry to encrypt data using the public key and on request, sends the encrypted data to the first DSD (potentially via a host computer system, including a memory card reader)”).
Klapman does not explicitly disclose, however Luft teaches:
using a first serial communication interface (Luft: ¶ 0035; ¶ 0070; ¶ 0072, “The personal computer 101 and the USB stick 102 are connected by means of their respective USB interface 103, 111, such that data can be transmitted 119 between them.”; ¶ 0080, “The encrypted data 504 which is to be shifted is transmitted in a shift message, which will be explained in more detail in the following text, from the personal computer 101, in general from the first memory device, to the USB stick 102, in general to the second memory device”).
Same motivation as claims 19 and 27.
and/or (ii) performing: receiving the encrypted first data using a second serial communication interface, decrypting the received encrypted first data using a second cryptography unit, and
Klapman in view of Luft does not explicitly disclose, however Shahin teaches:
storing the decrypted received first data using a second memory device; wherein at least two of the following steps run at least partially in parallel or with temporal overlap: the providing, the encrypted, the sending, the receiving, the decrypteding, the storing (Shahin: ¶ 0100, “The secure transfer system 110 may perform the operations of the process 1000 in parallel or in different orders, or may perform different steps. For example, the secure transfer system 110 may send 1003 the modified transaction request file to a first destination in parallel to storing 1004 a representation of the untokenized values for each transaction request.”).
Same motivation as claims 19 and 27.
Regarding claims 20 and 29, the combination of Klapman, Luft and Shahin teaches all the features of claims 19 and 28, as outlined above.
Klapman does not explicitly disclose, however Luft teaches:
wherein the second memory device is configured to provide second data to be sent, the second cryptography unit is configured to encrypt the second data to be sent, and the second communication interface is configured to send the encrypted second data to be sent from the second computing unit to the first computing unit, and the first communication interface is configured to receive the encrypted second data from the second computing unit, the first cryptography unit is configured to decrypt the received encrypted second data, and the first memory device is configured to store the decrypted received second data (Luft: ¶ 0121, “It should be noted that the transmission can also take place in the opposite direction from the USB stick 102 to the personal computer 101 ... transmitted from the data memory 116 in the USB stick 102 to the data memory 108 in the personal computer 101”; ¶ 0076, “the USB stick 102 have a respective logic unit ... to carry out an asymmetric encryption method”; ¶ 0121, “In this case, the encryption is carried out in the USB stick; ¶ 0072, “The personal computer 101 and the USB stick 102 are connected by means of their respective USB interface 103, 111, such that data [encrypted second data] can be transmitted 119 between them”; ¶ 0121, “transmission can also take place in the opposite direction from the USB stick 102 [the second communication interface to send] to the personal computer 101 [to the first computing unit] ... transmitted from the data memory 116 in the USB stick 102; ¶ 0072, “The personal computer 101 and the USB stick 102 are connected by means of their respective USB interface 103, [first communication interface] 111, such that data can be transmitted 119 between them”; ¶ 0121, “the decryption in the personal computer 101”, “data [the decrypted encrypted second data] which is to be shifted [configured to store] ... to the data memory 108 [first memory device] in the personal computer 101”).
Same motivation as claims 19 and 27.
Regarding claims 21 and 30-31, the combination of Klapman, Luft and Shahin teaches all the features of claims 19 and 28, as outlined above.
Klapman in view of Luft does not explicitly disclose, however Shahin teaches:
wherein: (i) at least two of the first memory unit, the first cryptography unit, and the first communication interface and/or (ii) at least two of the second memory unit, the second cryptography unit, and the second communication interface, are configured to process corresponding data at least partially in parallel (Shahin: ¶ 0100, “The secure transfer system 110 may perform the operations of the process 1000 in parallel or in different orders, or may perform different steps. For example, the secure transfer system 110 may send 1003 the modified transaction request file to a first destination in parallel to storing 1004 a representation of the untokenized values for each transaction request.”).
Same motivation as claims 19 and 27.
Regarding claims 23 and 36, the combination of Klapman, Luft and Shahin teaches all the features of claims 19 and 28, as outlined above.
Klapman teaches:
wherein the first cryptography unit and/or the second cryptography unit, is configured to encrypt and/or decrypt data block by block, without knowledge of an entire message (Klapman: ¶ 0007, “There is provided an improvement in hardware encryption by defining block ranges in a data storage device (DSD) and assigning a cryptographic key for each block range. This way, a single file, which spans the defined block range, can be retrieved in the form of multiple blocks in encrypted form. The blocks can then be sent across an insecure link and stored on a second computer system. The decryption hardware of the second computer system can then decrypt the blocks when needed.”).
Claims 22, 24-26, 32-35 and 37-38 would be allowable if they were rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, also should applicant overcome all the claims’ objections and claims’ rejections, set forth in this office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for identifying allowable subject matter.
The closest prior arts made of records are Klapman (U.S Pub No. 2022/0,123,932 A1, referred to as Klapman), Luft et al. (U.S Pub No. 2007/0,153,580 A1, referred to as Luft) and Shahin et al. (U.S Pub No. 2022/0,343,015 A1, referred to as Shahin).
Klapman discloses a data storage device (DSD) hardware and more specifically systems and methods for encrypting data stored on a DSD. A DSD comprises a non-volatile storage medium to store multiple file system data objects using block addressing. The multiple file system data objects are addressable by respective ranges of blocks. A device controller is integrated with the DSD and comprises hardware circuitry configured to encrypt data to be stored on the storage medium and decrypt data stored on the storage medium based on different cryptographic keys, and to use each of the different cryptographic keys for one of the ranges of blocks addressing a respective file system data object.
Luft discloses a memory device having a memory for storage of data to be shifted, as well as a unit for encryption of data based on an asymmetric encryption method using a public key of a second memory device to which the data which is to be shifted and is stored in the memory is to be shifted. In addition a deletion unit is provided for deletion from the memory of the stored data which is to be shifted, once the data which is to be shifted and is encrypted with the public cryptographic key of the second memory device has been formed. A copying unit copies the shift message to the second memory device or to a third memory device, with the data no longer being available in the first memory from a time before the copying of the shift message to the second memory device or to the third memory device.
Shanin discloses a system and a method for securing sensitive data for transaction requests using tokenization and encryption. A secure transfer system secures sensitive information of transaction requests. The secure transfer system may receive a transaction request file and generate a modified transaction request file by tokenizing values in the received file. For each transaction request in the file, the system may store a representation of the untokenized values in a data store in conjunction with an identifier of the transaction request. This identifier may be generated from the tokenized values. The secure transfer system may use the identifier to query the datastore for the representation of the untokenized values. The system may decrypt encrypted values in the representation to generate a transaction request file of detokenized values, which may be provided to an automated clearing house to fulfill the transaction requests.
However, regarding claim 22, the prior art Klapman, Luft and Shahin when taken in the context of the claim as a whole do not disclose nor suggest, “wherein: the first computing unit includes a hardware first logic, wherein the first logic is configured: (i) to send the encrypted first data to be sent directly, without temporary storage, using the first communication interface to the second computing unit and/or (ii) to decrypt the received encrypted second data directly, without temporary storage, using the first cryptography unit, and/or that the second computing unit includes a hardware second logic, wherein the second logic is configured: (i) to send the encrypted second data to be sent directly, without temporary storage, using the second communication interface to the first computing unit, and/or (ii) to decrypt the received first encrypted data directly, without temporary storage, using the second cryptography unit.”.
Regarding claims 24 and 37, the prior art Klapman, Luft and Shahin when taken in the context of the claim as a whole do not disclose nor suggest, “wherein the first communication interface and/or the second communication interface, is configured to send and/or receive data packet by packet, without knowledge of an entire message.”.
Regarding claim 25, the prior art Klapman, Luft and Shahin when taken in the context of the claim as a whole do not disclose nor suggest, “wherein the first memory device is configured to store the first data to be sent, unencryted, and the decryped received second data in different areas in the first memory device and/or the second memory device is configured to store the decrypted received first data and the second data to be sent, unencrypted, in different areas in the second memory device.”
Regarding claim 26, the prior art Klapman, Luft and Shahin when taken in the context of the claim as a whole do not disclose nor suggest, “wherein the first cryptography unit includes a first cryptography module and a second cryptography module and/or the second cryptography unit includes a third cryptography module and a fourth cryptography module, wherein the first cryptography module and the third cryptography module are configured to encrypt data to be sent and the second cryptography module and the fourth cryptography module are configured to decrypt data received.”.
Regarding claim 32, the prior art Klapman, Luft and Shahin when taken in the context of the claim as a whole do not disclose nor suggest, “wherein the receiving and the sending are carried out directly without temporary storage, using a hardware first logic of the first computing unit.”.
Regarding claim 33, the prior art Klapman, Luft and Shahin when taken in the context of the claim as a whole do not disclose nor suggest, “wherein the receiving and the decrypting are carried out directly without temporary storage, using a hardware first logic of the first computing unit.”.
Regarding claim 34, the prior art Klapman, Luft and Shahin when taken in the context of the claim as a whole do not disclose nor suggest, “wherein the encrypting and sending are carried out directly, without temporary storage, using a hardware second logic of the second computing unit.”.
Regarding claim 35, the prior art Klapman, Luft and Shahin when taken in the context of the claim as a whole do not disclose nor suggest, “wherein the receiving and the decrypting are carried out directly, without temporary storage, using a hardware second logic of the second computing unit.”.
Regarding claim 38, the prior art Klapman, Luft and Shahin when taken in the context of the claim as a whole do not disclose nor suggest, “wherein the first memory device stores the first data to be sent, unencrypted, and the decrypted received second data in different areas in the first memory device and/or the second memory device stores the decrypted received first data and the second data to be sent, unencrypted, in different areas in the second memory device.”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN SAADOUN whose telephone number is (571)272-8408. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Mehrmanesh Amir can be reached at 571-2703351. 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.
/HASSAN SAADOUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2435
/AMIR MEHRMANESH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights