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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim benefits of a Provisional Application. S/N. 63, 651, 549 filed on 05/24/2024.
Claim status
Claims 1-26 presented for the examination and remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10 and 11 are objected to because the word “and” is required before the last limitations in the above listed claims. For example, in claim 1. “a method…; “during boot of the container, generating…, or thereof;” and “establishing…”. Similar corrections in claims 10 and 11 are required.
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 computing device…”, “ a first container…” and “a second container…” in claim 21.
The limitations “computing device”, “ a first and a second container” are being treated as a 112f limitation, because it meets the 3-prong test to determine when a limitations are a 112f limitations. First, the term “device” and “container” are a substitute or placeholder for “means”. Second, they are modified by functional language, “computing device configured to: host a hypervisor…”, “a first container configured to host a first application…” and “ a second container configured to host a second application…”. Third, they are not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.”
Because this claim 21 limitations “computing device configured to: host a hypervisor…”, “a first container configured to host a first application…” and “ a second container configured to host a second application…”. in claim 21 are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that (Fig. 1 and [0010]) appear to be the corresponding structure to perform the claimed functions.
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) by including
the hardware devices (i.e., CPU and memory coupled with computing device to perform the function) 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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 11, 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wentz U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0312734 A1, (hereinafter Wentz).
Regarding claim 1.
Wentz teaches a method comprising: creating, via a hypervisor hosted on a computing device, a container configured to host an application (Wentz teaches in Fig. 1 and para. [0086] secure computing module 124 may include a trusted execution technology (TXT) module combining a TPM 128 with establishment of a secure container at run-time);
during boot of the container, generating, at the container, a cryptographic key that is based on a measurement or characteristic of process code of the container, a configuration parameter of the container, or any combination thereof; (Wentz teaches in Fig. 1 and para. [0086] the secure computing module 124 may include TPM 128 combined with a boot-measuring protocol using hash trees, Merkle trees, or the like to measure boot entries to create an “attested boot,” additionally or separately from the attested computation description described above. A secure computing module 124 may include a trusted execution technology (TXT) module combining a TPM 128 with establishment of a secure container at run-time; secure container may be isolated from a software stack and OS of at least the transaction authentication node 104 and/or use TPM 128 to measure (i.e., measurement) and attest to secure container prior to launch…, including encryption using a cryptographic system a decryption and/or encryption key to which a secure processor and and/or use of dedicated cache lines or the like to physically separate memory accessible to secure computing module 116 from CPU and/or input/output devices or connections and further, Wentz teaches in para. [0059] a trusted platform module (TPM 120) may have a hard-coded process for signing a digital signature, which may be performed using a private key, which is associated with a public key. Note that here the claim lists features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. However, the prior art of record Wentz addressed all of the limitations);
establishing a secure connection with a memory using the cryptographic key (Wentz teaches in Fig. 1 and para. [0086] secure computing module 124 may include a trusted execution technology (TXT) module combining a TPM 128 with establishment of a secure container at run-time;…, including encryption using a cryptographic system a decryption and/or encryption key to which a secure processor and and/or use of dedicated cache lines or the like to physically separate memory accessible to secure computing module 116 from CPU and/or input/output devices or connections. Note that here a secure connection is made between a secure container and CPU and/or memory).
Regarding claim 10.
Wentz teaches creating, via the hypervisor hosted on the computing device, a second container configured to host a second application; during boot of the second container, generating, via the second container, a second cryptographic key different than the cryptographic key that is based on a measurement or characteristic of process code of the second container, a configuration parameter of the second container, or any combination thereof; establishing a secure connection with a memory using the second cryptographic key (Wentz teaches the entire limitations except the term “second”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the term “second”, because applicant has not disclosed that the term “second” solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the reference used for independent claim 1.
Regarding claims 11 and 21.
Claims 11 and 21 incorporate substantively all the limitation of claim 1 in a device and a system form and are rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, for the limitations “a processor”, “computer readable media” and “a device”, the prior art of record Wentz teaches in Fig. 1, para. [0031] and [0082].
Regarding claim 20.
Wentz teaches wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to host a memory access management application at the container to facilitate secure communications between the memory and other applications or containers (Wentz teaches in Fig. 1 and para. [0086] secure computing module 124 may include a trusted execution technology (TXT) module combining a TPM 128 with establishment of a secure container at run-time;…, including encryption using a cryptographic system a decryption and/or encryption key to which a secure processor and and/or use of dedicated cache lines or the like to physically separate memory accessible to secure computing module 116 from CPU and/or input/output devices or connections. Note that here a secure connection is made between a secure container and CPU and/or memory).
Regarding claim 22.
Wentz teaches wherein the first container is configured to provide a public key of the first cryptographic key to the memory controller to establish the first secure communication session (Wentz teaches in para. [0064] still referring to FIG. 1, one or more elements of data described in this disclosure, such as digital signatures, authorization tokens, measurements and/or other data from attested computing sessions, or the like may be stored in a secure listing…).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wentz in view of Cross et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0146015 A1, (hereinafter Cross).
Regarding claim 2. Wentz teaches the method of claim 1.
Wentz does not explicitly teach generating an asymmetrical key pair as the cryptographic key.
However, Cross teaches generating an asymmetrical key pair as the cryptographic key (Cross teaches in para. [0025] algorithms to derive the symmetric master key from the private key of the asymmetric key pair. The RSA cryptographic algorithm is a well-known and accepted cryptographic algorithm. RSA is used primarily for public key cryptography).
Therefore, Wentz and Cross are analogues arts and they are in the same field of endeavor as they both are directed to the process of generating an asymmetrical key in accepted cryptographic algorithm.
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 teachings of using the symmetric master key from the private key of the asymmetric key pair ([0025]) as taught, by Cross into the teachings of Wentz invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the asymmetric maser key is derived from the private key of an asymmetric key pair and stored in computer memory, so that files can be encrypted or decrypted with the symmetric master key and further, files can be encrypted/decrypted easily, by simple technique.
Regarding claim 3.
Cross further teaches providing a public key of the asymmetrical key pair to a memory controller of the memory (Cross teaches in para. [0022] the EFS 48, in general, can operate to derive the symmetric master key from the private key of the asymmetric key pair, and store the symmetric master key in the computer memory 54…).
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 teachings of operating the symmetric master key and storing the symmetric master key in memory ([0022]) as taught, by Cross into the teachings of Wentz invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the symmetric master key in a computer memory can be stored in a manner such that the computer can repeatedly, and rapidly, accesses the symmetric master key from the computer memory in an efficient manner (Cross [0022]).
Regarding claim 4.
Cross teaches decrypting a message received from the memory encrypted using the public key of the asymmetrical key pair encrypted using a secret key of the asymmetrical key pair (Cross teaches in para. [0002] encryption and decryption techniques typically rely on lengthy strings (e.g., 1024 bits, 2048 bits, 4096 bits, or more) to provide for secure encryption or decryption of files. Computer performance suffers due to the amount of data in the messages as well as the size of the encryption keys themselves and further, Cross teaches in para. [0003] asymmetric file encryption systems use a different key to encrypt a file from the key used to decrypt the encrypted file. Many current file encryption systems rely on asymmetric encryption, such as those that rely on public key/private key pairs).
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 teachings of operating the symmetric master key and storing the symmetric master key in memory ([0022]) as taught, by Cross into the teachings of Wentz invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the symmetric master key in a computer memory can be stored in a manner such that the computer can repeatedly, and rapidly, accesses the symmetric master key from the computer memory in an efficient manner (Cross [0022]).
Regarding claim 5. Wentz teaches the method of claim 1.
Wentz does not explicitly teach receiving a second cryptographic key from the memory that is associated with the memory for use in secure communications with the memory.
However, Cross teaches receiving a second cryptographic key from the memory that is associated with the memory for use in secure communications with the memory (Cross teaches in para. [0051] the specific example of a service layer product that could be used in implementing the symmetric master keys is the Cryptographic Service Provider (CSP) developed by Microsoft.RTM. Corporation. The CSP performs cryptographic functions and manages cryptographic keys used in the functions and further, Cross teaches in para. [0053] the symmetric master key can then be stored in the computer memory 54. The symmetric master key can (and should) be protected in encrypted or decrypted form in the computer memory 54 when not being used).
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 teachings of implementing the symmetric master keys is the Cryptographic Service Provider (CSP) ([0051]) as taught, by Cross into the teachings of Wentz invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to perform encryption, decryption, digital signing, and verification functions using certain types of cryptographic algorithms and keys (Cross [0051]).
Regarding claim 8.
Cross further teaches receiving, from the memory, a symmetrical key as the second cryptographic key (Cross teaches in para. [0051] the symmetric master keys is the Cryptographic Service Provider (CSP) developed by Microsoft.RTM. Corporation. The CSP performs cryptographic functions and manages cryptographic keys used in the functions...).
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 teachings of implementing the symmetric master keys is the Cryptographic Service Provider (CSP) ([0051]) as taught, by Cross into the teachings of Wentz invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to perform encryption, decryption, digital signing, and verification functions using certain types of cryptographic algorithms and keys (Cross [0051]).
Regarding claim 9.
Cross further teaches encrypting messages from the container to the memory and decrypting messages from the memory to the container using the symmetrical key (Cross teaches in para. [0051] the symmetric master keys is the Cryptographic Service Provider (CSP)… The CSP performs cryptographic functions and manages cryptographic keys used in the functions. For instance, one or more CSPs are configured to perform encryption, decryption, digital signing, and verification functions using certain types of cryptographic algorithms and keys and further, Cross teaches in para. [0085] unique identifiers are arranged as data stored within a key container 320. The key container includes a certificate, a private key, and a public key…).
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 teachings of implementing the symmetric master keys is the Cryptographic Service Provider (CSP) ([0051]) as taught, by Cross into the teachings of Wentz invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to perform encryption, decryption, digital signing, and verification functions using certain types of cryptographic algorithms and keys (Cross [0051]).
Regarding claim 12.
Claim 12 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 2 in a device form and is rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, for the limitations “a processor”, “computer readable media” and “a device”, the prior art of record Wentz teaches in Fig. 1, para. [0031] and [0082].
Regarding claim 13.
Claim 13 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 3 in a device form and is rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, for the limitations “a processor”, “computer readable media” and “a device”, the prior art of record Wentz teaches in Fig. 1, para. [0031] and [0082].
Regarding claim 14.
Claim 14 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 4 in a device form and is rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, for the limitations “a processor”, “computer readable media” and “a device”, the prior art of record Wentz teaches in Fig. 1, para. [0031] and [0082].
Regarding claim 15.
Claim 15 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 5 in a device form and is rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, for the limitations “a processor”, “computer readable media” and “a device”, the prior art of record Wentz teaches in Fig. 1, para. [0031] and [0082].
Regarding claim 18.
Claim 18 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 8 in a device form and is rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, for the limitations “a processor”, “computer readable media” and “a device”, the prior art of record Wentz teaches in Fig. 1, para. [0031] and [0082].
Regarding claim 19.
Claim 19 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 9 in a device form and is rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, for the limitations “a processor”, “computer readable media” and “a device”, the prior art of record Wentz teaches in Fig. 1, para. [0031] and [0082].
Claims 6, 7, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wentz in view of Cross further in view of Reece et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0127247 A1, (hereinafter Reece).
Regarding claim 6. Wentz in view of Cross teaches the method of claim 5.
Wentz in view of Cross does not explicitly teach receiving, from the memory, a public key of an asymmetrical key pair as the second cryptographic key.
However, Reece teaches receiving, from the memory, a public key of an asymmetrical key pair as the second cryptographic key (Reece teaches in para. [0048] although the scope of the present invention is not limited in this respect, processor 790 may select the appropriate public key from public key database 710 based upon the previously received unsigned code (block 820), and the authentication is successful, then antenna circuitry 770 may be authorized and conducted power may be permitted to pass (block 850)… It should be noted that although an asymmetrical encryption technique has been described with respect to FIG. 6, symmetrical techniques that include complementary private keys may also be used in conjunction with embodiments of the present invention).
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 teachings of processor 790 may select the appropriate public key from public key database 710 based upon the previously received unsigned code (block 820), and the authentication is successful ([0048]) as taught, by Reece into the teachings of Wentz in view of Cross invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the method suspends the transmission if the antenna is not attached to the transmitter, thus causing the transmitter to exceed applicable effective isotrophically radiated power (EIRP) limits. The early detection protects the transmitter`s power amplifier (PA) and other circuit elements from damage.
Regarding claim 7.
Recce further teaches encrypting a message to the memory using the public key of the asymmetrical key pair (Recce teaches in para. [0048] processor 790 may select the appropriate public key from public key database 710 based upon the previously received unsigned code (block 820)…by using an asymmetrical encryption technique has been described with respect to FIG. 6, symmetrical techniques that include complementary private keys may also be used in conjunction with embodiments of the present invention).
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 teachings of processor 790 may select the appropriate public key from public key database 710 based upon the previously received unsigned code (block 820), and the authentication is successful ([0048]) as taught, by Reece into the teachings of Wentz in view of Cross invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the method suspends the transmission if the antenna is not attached to the transmitter, thus causing the transmitter to exceed applicable effective isotrophically radiated power (EIRP) limits. The early detection protects the transmitter`s power amplifier (PA) and other circuit elements from damage.
Regarding claim 16.
Claim 16 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 6 in a device form and is rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, for the limitations “a processor”, “computer readable media” and “a device”, the prior art of record Wentz teaches in Fig. 1, para. [0031] and [0082].
Regarding claim 17.
Claim 17 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 7 in a device form and is rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, for the limitations “a processor”, “computer readable media” and “a device”, the prior art of record Wentz teaches in Fig. 1, para. [0031] and [0082].
Claims 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wentz in view of Bartkowiak U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0359847 A1, (hereinafter Bartkowiak).
Regarding claim 23. Wentz teaches the computing system of claim 22.
Wentz does not explicitly teach wherein the memory controller is configured to provide a message that includes a public key of a third cryptographic key associated with the memory controller to the container, wherein the message is encrypted using the public key of the first cryptographic key.
However, Bartkowiak teaches wherein the memory controller is configured to provide a message that includes a public key of a third cryptographic key associated with the memory controller to the container, wherein the message is encrypted using the public key of the first cryptographic key (Bartkowiak teaches in para. [0064] the cryptographic secret may thus be transmitted to the central point. In order to be able to show the central point later that the public key of the device, which has also been transmitted, is also authentic,…, the cryptographic secret is also signed by the device, with the private key of the device. From the central point side, this signature may be verified with the public key of the device, as a result of which the authenticity of the public key of the device may be proven simultaneously).
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 teachings of using the cryptographic secret may thus be transmitted to the central point. In order to be able to show the central point later that the public key of the device ([0064]) as taught, by Bartkowiak into the teachings of Wentz in view of Cross invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the secure exchange of key material between road users not only secures the transmission path via common mechanisms, but also ensures that sender actually pretends the device or person. The consumers of data are enabled to securely authenticate their origin.
Regarding claim 24.
Bartkowiak further teaches wherein the second container is configured to provide a public key of the second cryptographic key to the memory controller to establish the second secure communication session, and wherein the memory controller is configured to provide a second message that includes the public key of the third cryptographic key associated with the memory controller to the container, wherein the message is encrypted using the public key of the second cryptographic key (Bartkowiak teaches in para. [0064] the cryptographic secret may thus be transmitted to the central point. In order to be able to show the central point later that the public key of the device, which has also been transmitted, is also authentic,…, the cryptographic secret is also signed by the device, with the private key of the device…, and further, Bartkowiak teaches in para. [0069] based on the public key, the central point and/or one or more further devices may now send encrypted messages to the device. The method may furthermore comprise obtaining (for instance receiving/calling up) 190 one or more messages (encrypted with the public key of the device) for the device via the electronic mailbox of the device...).
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 teachings of using the cryptographic secret may thus be transmitted to the central point. In order to be able to show the central point later that the public key of the device ([0064]) as taught, by Bartkowiak into the teachings of Wentz in view of Cross invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the secure exchange of key material between road users not only secures the transmission path via common mechanisms, but also ensures that sender actually pretends the device or person. The consumers of data are enabled to securely authenticate their origin.
Regarding claim 25. Wentz teaches the computing system of claim 22.
Wentz does not explicitly teach teaches wherein the memory controller is configured to provide a message that includes a symmetrical key of a third cryptographic key associated with the memory controller to the container, wherein the message is encrypted using the public key of the first cryptographic key.
However, Bartkowiak teaches wherein the memory controller is configured to provide a message that includes a symmetrical key of a third cryptographic key associated with the memory controller to the container, wherein the message is encrypted using the public key of the first cryptographic key (Bartkowiak teaches in par. [0086] the public key in turn is used to send the device encrypted messages and to check the authenticity of the signed messages sent by the device. Accordingly, the method comprises encrypted communication 250 with the device via the electronic mailbox of the device based on the public key of the device…, further, Bartkowiak teaches in para. [0098] for each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles, its own message (which can be encrypted, for instance, based on the device-specific public key of the vehicle) can be generated. In this case, the contents of the message can be encrypted based completely on a (single) cryptographic key…).
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 teachings of using the cryptographic secret may thus be transmitted to the central point. In order to be able to show the central point later that the public key of the device ([0064]) as taught, by Bartkowiak into the teachings of Wentz in view of Cross invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the secure exchange of key material between road users not only secures the transmission path via common mechanisms, but also ensures that sender actually pretends the device or person. The consumers of data are enabled to securely authenticate their origin.
Regarding claim 26.
Wentz in view of Bartkowiak teaches wherein the computing device is configured to host a third container hosting a third application is configured to send a message to the first container indicating that the third container is hosting a trusted application, wherein the message is encrypted using the public key of the first cryptographic key, wherein the first container is configured to communicate with the memory controller using the symmetrical key to establish a third storage location of the plurality of storage locations of the non-volatile memory for allocation to the third container (Wentz teaches in Fig. 1 and para. [0086] secure computing module 124 may include a trusted execution technology (TXT) module combining a TPM 128 with establishment of a secure container at run-time;…, including encryption using a cryptographic system a decryption and/or encryption key to which a secure processor and and/or use of dedicated cache lines or the like to physically separate memory accessible to secure computing module 116 from CPU and/or input/output devices or connections. Note that here a secure connection is made between a secure container and CPU and/or memory and further, Bartkowiak teaches in para. [0064] asymmetric cryptography, the private key is used to sign messages, and to decrypt messages that have been encrypted based on the public key. The public key is used to check the signature and to encrypt messages for the respective device. In general, a signature is a value based on the one hand on the data to be signed, and on the other hand on the private key…, and further, Bartkowiak teaches in para. [0069] based on the public key, the central point and/or one or more further devices may now send encrypted messages to the device. The method may furthermore comprise obtaining (for instance receiving/calling up) 190 one or more messages (encrypted with the public key of the device) for the device via the electronic mailbox of the device. The method may furthermore comprise decrypting 195 the one or more messages with the private key of the device. To communicate with the central point, the device may encrypt the corresponding data/messages with the public key of the respective devices/of the central point. Cryptographic keys of a group communication may also be used for encrypted communication…).
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 teachings of using the cryptographic secret may thus be transmitted to the central point. In order to be able to show the central point later that the public key of the device ([0064]) as taught, by Bartkowiak into the teachings of including the method of encryption using a cryptographic system a decryption and/or encryption key to which a secure processor and and/or use of dedicated cache lines or the like to physically separate memory accessible to secure computing module 116 from CPU and/or input/output devices or connections ([0086]) as taught, by Wentz invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the method enables adding nodes to a cryptographic evaluator to increase statistical likelihood of correct authentication determinations, and selections of the cryptographic evaluator across a wider range of network locations and/or geographical locations to improve independence of the authenticating nodes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERHANU SHITAYEWOLDETSADIK whose telephone number is (571)270-7142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 5712723865. 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.
/BERHANU SHITAYEWOLDETSADIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights