DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
Claims 1-4 are pending.
Claims 1-4 have been examined.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis
In the instant case, claims 1-4 are directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claim(s) recite(s) authorizing transaction. Specifically, the claims recite “providing to a ... the asymmetric public key; sending the remote key fragment to the ...; storing the local key fragment in the ...; responsive to receiving the second key fragment from the ...: wherein the cryptographically signed message authorizes the transaction; and providing, to the ..., the cryptographically signed message.”, which is “commercial or legal interactions” within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for authorizing transaction. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, the claims recite cryptographic operations “generating a random private-public key pair including an asymmetric private key and an asymmetric public key; splitting the asymmetric private key into a remote key fragment and a local key fragment, wherein splitting is performed in accordance with a secret sharing scheme; generating the asymmetric private key from the local key fragment and the remote key fragment; generating a cryptographically signed message using the asymmetric private key …;” which is the abstract idea of a mathematical concept. See MPEP 2106. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea, as it has been held that a combination of abstract ideas, in this case organizing human activity and a mathematical concept, is still an abstract idea. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of cryptographic keys, digital signature, secure payment system and memory of the mobile device merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The processors and memories are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of authorizing transaction with cryptographic key) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using cryptographic keys, digital signature, secure payment system and memory of the mobile device to perform transaction authorization steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 describes obfuscation vector. Dependent claim 3 describes generating asymmetric private key based on the private key fragments. Dependent claim 4 describes linear operation. These claims further recite the abstract idea of a mathematical concept. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of cryptographic keys, digital signature, secure payment system and memory of the mobile device to perform transaction merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims simply recite the concept of authorizing transaction. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.
The use of a cryptographic keys, digital signature, secure payment system and memory of the mobile device to perform transaction as tools to implement the abstract idea does not render the claim patent eligible because it does not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea.
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 2 is 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.
Insufficient Antecedent Basis
Claim 2 recites the limitation “sending the obfuscation vector to the server, …” in line 6 of claim 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Application Publication US20020013898A1 (“Sudia et al.”) in view of US Application Publication US20140156531A1 (“Poon et al.”).
Regarding claim 1, Sudia et al. discloses:
generating a random private-public key pair including an asymmetric private key and an asymmetric public key; (¶0101)
providing to a secure payment system the asymmetric public key; (¶0102)
splitting the asymmetric private key into a remote key fragment and a local key fragment, wherein splitting is performed in accordance with a secret sharing scheme; (¶0101)
sending the remote key fragment to the secure computer system; (¶0102)
storing the local key fragment in the memory of the computer device; (¶0102)
responsive to receiving the second key fragment from the secure computer system: (¶0108)
generating the asymmetric private key from the local key fragment and the remote key fragment; (¶0201)
generating a cryptographically signed message using the asymmetric private key, wherein the cryptographically signed message authorizes the transaction; and (¶0051)
providing, to the secure payment system, the cryptographically signed message. (¶0051)
Sudia et al. does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the computer device is a mobile device;
wherein the secure computer system is a secure payment system;
However, Poon et al. discloses:
wherein the computer device is a mobile device; (Fig. 21 item 10)
wherein the secure computer system is a secure payment system; (Fig. 21 item 8)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Method and Apparatus for Roaming Use of Cryptographic Values of Sudia et al. by including mobile device to authorize payment transaction in accordance with the teaching of Poon et al.. This modification enables the modified system to support secure mobile payment. It improves the security of mobile payment as the digital signing key (private key) is more securely safe guarded by splitted to a plurality of fragments and stored at different storages.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Application Publication US20020013898A1 (“Sudia et al.”) in view of US Application Publication US20140156531A1 (“Poon et al.”), and in further view of US Application Publication US20080031460A1 (“Brookner et al.”) .
Regarding claim 3, Sudia et al. in view of Poon et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Sudia et al. and Poon et al. do not explicitly disclose:
wherein remote key fragment and the local key fragment generate the asymmetric private key when combined via a linear operation.
However, Brookner et al. discloses:
wherein remote key fragment and the local key fragment generate the asymmetric private key when combined via a linear operation. (¶0026)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Sudia et al. and Poon et al. by including linear operation for private key reconstruction in accordance with the teaching of Brookner et al.. Using linear operation reduces the computational complexity. Hence, it improves the efficiency of private key reconstruction.
Regarding claim 4, Sudia et al. in view of Poon et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Sudia et al. and Poon et al. do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the linear operation includes at least one of a bitwise XOR operation, a modular addition operation, a modular subtraction operation, a modular multiplication operator, and an inverse modular multiplication operator.
However, Brookner et al. discloses:
wherein the linear operation includes at least one of a bitwise XOR operation, a modular addition operation, a modular subtraction operation, a modular multiplication operator, and an inverse modular multiplication operator. (¶0026)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Sudia et al. and Poon et al. by including linear operation such as bitwise XOR in accordance with the teaching of Brookner et al.. Using linear operation such as bitwise XOR reduces the computational complexity. Hence, it improves the computation efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the 101 and 112b rejection, set forth in this Office action, are overcome and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The reason for allowance will be furnished upon allowance of the application.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20130013931A1 (“O’Hare et al.”) discloses systems and methods are provided for securely sharing data. A processor forms two or more shares of a data set encrypted with a symmetric key, the data set associated with a first user device, and causes the encrypted data set shares to be stored separately from each other in at least one remote storage location. The processor generates first and second encrypted keys by encrypting data indicative of the symmetric key with a first asymmetric key of first and second asymmetric key pairs associated with the first user device and a second user device, respectively, and causes the encrypted key to be stored in the at least one storage location. To restore the data set, a predetermined number of the two or more encrypted data set shares and at least one of the second asymmetric keys of the first and second asymmetric key pairs are needed.
US20090313171A1(“Yacobi”) discloses Product registration of an electronic good (e.g., software) over the telephone is made easier by reducing the length of code that is communicated to the electronic good provider (e.g., software provider). More particularly, an electronic goods provider provides a product ID comprising a message and digital signature to a client purchasing their electronic good. The electronic good is registered over a telephone by providing only the digital signature portion of a product ID to a telephone registration server having the electronic good provider's private key. The telephone registration server computes a message from the digital signature and private key. If the message has an expected structure ( e.g., zeros in certain places) the software is authentic. Therefore, the verification method ensures software authenticity using only a portion of the product ID and thereby reducing the amount of information that needs to be transferred over the telephone to perform the registration process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YINGYING ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-5308. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am - 5:00pm 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, John W Hayes can be reached on 571-272-6708. 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.
/YINGYING ZHOU/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights