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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 canceled.
Claims 15-34 are pending in this application.
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.
Claim(s) 15-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al(US 2022/0045838) in view of Bicksler et al(US 2006/0239458).
Claim 15: Zhang disclose encrypting the current chaotic state vector at a first device using an error correction vector and transmitting the encrypted chaotic state vector to a second device, decrypting the vector using a previous shared error correction vector to resume communication in (page 3[0053-0054],[0056]; page 4[0072]; page 5[0082]:the y(t) represents a complex chaotic variable in the drive system and is used for chaotic masking and generating ciphertext x(t) represents a reconstructed complex chaotic variable in the response system. To implement complex modified projective difference function synchronization, it needs to ensure that a squared error of the first complex state vector in the chaos equation of the response system. A transmission signal determining module, an actual transmission signal determining module, a complex state vector reconstruction module and an information signal decryption module. The information signal decryption module is configured to perform decryption according to the reconstructed complex state vector). Zhang does not specifically disclose detecting a communication failure associated with an update step. Bicksler disclose this limitation in (page 1[0003-0004]; page 2[0022]: system detects communication failure such as lose cryptographic synchronization in noisy channels. Further, when a transmitter and receiver are not synchronized, the transmitter and receiver will have different cryptographic states that must be resynchronized in order to encrypt subsequent data to be received and understood at a receiver. It is possible to majority vote and increment the frame index integer(update step)). It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to detect a communication failure associated with an update step as taught in Bicksler with system of Zhang in order to prevent transmission interruptions thus enhancing robustness of encrypted communications in the presence of channel errors or signal loss.
Claim 16: Zhang disclose the error correction vector is initialized during a session registration in (page 5[0096-0098]).
Claim 17: Zhang disclose the encrypted vector is transmitted using symmetrical encryption in (page 4[0078]).
Claim 18: Zhang disclose an updated state vector is treated as a reset vector for future sessions in (page 3[0053-0054]).
Claim 19: Zhang disclose logging an error event and recovery index in (page 3[0054]).
Claim 20: Zhang disclose the correction vector is advanced after successful synchronization in (page 4[0080-0082]).
Claim 21: Zhang disclose a recovery mechanism is initiated if an acknowledgment is not received within a timeout interval in (page 2[0032-0034]).
Claim 22: Zhang disclose communication failure is associated with a step update encrypted using a chaotic vector in (page 2[0025-0028]).
Claim 23: Zhang disclose recovery is implemented with no transmission of a step index in (page 3[0050-0052]).
Claim 24: Zhang disclose the error correction vector comprises coefficients from a distinct chaotic function in (page 1[0004-0006]).
Claim 25: Zhang disclose blockchain node logs synchronization failure events in (page 2[0042]).
Claim 26: Zhang disclose both devices utilize a recovery log to track fallback state vectors in (Page 3[0054-0056]).
Claim 27: Zhang disclose encrypted state vector messages are time stamped for integrity in (page 3[0053]).
Claim 28: Zhang disclose the correction vector is specific to the pair of devices in (page 1[0016-0018]).
Claim 29: Zhang disclose verifying the decrypted vector using a hash derived from the vector itself in (page 2[0023-0025]).
Claim 30: Zhang disclose fallback vectors are prioritized by distance from last synchronized index in (page 2[0042]; page 4[0080]).
Claim 31: Zhang disclose encrypted error messages are transmitted via a separate recovery channel in (page 3[0054-0056]).
Claim 32: Zhang disclose synchronization recovery supports concurrent multi-party sessions in (page 4[0080-0082]).
Claim 33: Zhang disclose state vector advancement resumes using the corrected vector as new origin in (page 3[0054-0055]).
Claim 34: Zhang disclose state vector update is logged in both devices before confirmation in (page 4[0066-0068]).
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 15-34 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the current chaotic state vector",” the encrypted chaotic state vector” and “the vector”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a communication failure associated with an update step”. Claim is vague and lacks specificity because it does not specify what constitutes “updated step” and relationship between the communication failure and the update step. Thus, the scope of this limitation cannot be determined with reasonable certainty by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “an error correction vector” is indefinite. The claim does not define the structure or content of the recited vector. It is unclear how the error correction vector is used to perform the recited encryption and decryption function. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised the metes and bounds of the claim limitation.
Claims 16-34, dependent on claim 15.
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.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 15-34 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12413386. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other (see table below).
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12413386
Claim 15: A method for re-synchronizing chaotic state vector generators in a communication session, comprising: detecting a communication failure associated with an update step; encrypting the current chaotic state vector at a first device using an error correction vector; transmitting the encrypted chaotic state vector to a second device; and decrypting the vector using a previously shared error correction vector to resume communication.
Claim 1: A method for encrypting a communication session between a plurality of session devices, the method comprising: providing a common starting point for use by a chaotic state vector random generator in each session device to generate chaotic state vectors; sending to the plurality of session devices a common distance m from the common starting point for use by the chaotic state vector random generator in each session device to generate a first chaotic state vector am; updating at the plurality of session devices the common distance m; generating using the chaotic state vector random generator in each session device the first chaotic state vector am; at a sender device, encrypting a plaintext message into ciphertext using the first chaotic state vector am; and at a receiving device, decrypting the ciphertext message using the first chaotic state vector am.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are directed to generating chaotic state vector in a communication session between devices and claims are merely a broader version of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12413386 contains at least all of the limitations (or obvious equivalents) recited in claim 15 of the instant application.
USPTO Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSUK SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3857. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached 571-270-3351. 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.
/HOSUK SONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights