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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to the communication filed on 5/12/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/24/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application. 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
3. Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 4 of the claim should be amended to --at least one --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite receiving at least part of a digital signature, evaluating at least one mathematical function used for verification of the digital signature, and verifying the digital signature. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed limitations may be performed solely by human interaction and directed to mental processes as said steps could be performed in the human mind. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the abstract idea and/or judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as the claim does not recite any other active steps that could be considered that the abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application. It’s noted that the claim recites the operation “receiving, from a first electronic device, at least part of the digital signature and at least one checkpoint value corresponding to an expected output of a respective processing step of at least one mathematical function used for verification of the digital signature” .
However, said operation is not sufficient to consider that the abstract idea is being interpreted into a practical application. Said operation is recited at a high level of generality in receiving/gathering/processing information, which are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claims do not include additional elements/limitations/embodiments that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 9-3 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter for the same reasons addressed above as the claims recite an abstract idea and the claims do not positively recite any other operations that could be considered as the abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application or significantly more. It’s noted that claims 9-13 provide a general description of the digital signature. Said limitations are directed to the construct of the claimed digital signature and are not sufficient to consider that the abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, claims 9-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Zaverucha (US 2013/0097420) in view of Fang et al (KR 2024/0083838 A).
Regarding claim 1, Zaverucha teaches a method for generating a digital signature associated with a digital message at a first electronic device (par [0019], lines 10-12, “generates a digital signature for the message”), the method comprising:
one or more physical devices (fig. 1) to:
generating the digital signature of the digital message (par [0019], lines 10-12, “generates a digital signature for the message”); and
sending, to a second electronic device, at least part of the digital signature (par [0032], lines 24-26, “the digital signature can be sent separately from the message”).
Zaverucha does not explicitly teach determining at least one checkpoint value corresponding to an expected output of a respective processing step of at least one mathematical function used for verification of the digital signature and sending, to a second electronic device, the at least one checkpoint value.
However, Fang et al teaches determining at least one checkpoint value corresponding to an expected output of a respective processing step of at least one mathematical function used for verification of the digital signature (pg. 5, lines 20-26, which discloses each digital signature being appended to a checkpoint data set); and
sending, to a second electronic device, the at least one checkpoint value (pg. 16, lines 1-4, which discloses the digital signature mathematical checkpoint data being transmitted by a host or connected device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Fang et al within the disclosure of Zaverucha in order to provide the predictive result of improving digital signature recovery by implementing a multi-curve encryption algorithm to allow for restoration of digital signatures for verification without requiring error correction, while reducing false positives obtained during restoration (as disclosed in pg. 4, lines 25-40 of Fang et al).
Regarding claim 2, Zaverucha and Fang et al teach the limitation of claim 1.
Zaverucha further teaches wherein the digital signature is generated using an elliptic curve digital signature algorithm (par [0008], lines 1-5), and wherein the at least one mathematical function corresponds to a scalar-point multiplication constructed upon an elliptic curve group operation of point addition (par [0056], lines 1-5), at least one processing step of the at least one mathematical function implementing an addition of two points of an elliptic curve associated with the elliptic curve digital signature algorithm (par [0027], lines 14-18).
Regarding claim 3, Zaverucha and Fang et al teach the limitation of claim 1.
Zaverucha further teaches wherein the digital signature comprises a first half (par [0040], lines 1-10, “q represents the public key”) and a second half, the second half being a function of a private key associated with the digital signature (par [0040], lines 1-10, “x represents the private key”), the method further comprising determining first additional data as a function of an invert of the second half (par [0044], lines 1-3), and wherein sending at least the part of the digital signature and the at least one checkpoint value to the second electronic device comprises sending the first half of the digital signature as at least the part of the digital signature (par [0041], lines 1-5) and sending the first additional data (par [0041], lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 4, Zaverucha and Fang et al teach the limitation of claim 1.
Zaverucha further teaches wherein the digital signature comprises a first half and a second half, the second half being a function of a private key associated with the digital signature, the method further comprising determining at least one second additional data as a function of a result of at least one of a product between the first half and an invert of the second half (par [0043-0044]) or a product between a hash of the digital message and the invert of the second half, and wherein sending at least the part of the digital signature and the at least one checkpoint value to the second electronic device comprises sending the at least one second additional data (par [0042], lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 5, Zaverucha and Fang et al teach the limitation of claim 1.
Zaverucha further teaches wherein the digital signature is generated using a hash-based signature algorithm (par [0040], lines 4-10), and wherein the at least one mathematical function corresponds to a composition of hash functions (par [0072], lines 6-11), at least one processing step of the at least one mathematical function implementing at least one of the hash functions (claim 6, lines 10-13).
Regarding claim 7, Zaverucha teaches a method for verifying a digital signature associated with a digital message at a second electronic device (par [0019], lines 10-18, “generates a digital signature for the message…verifies the digital signature”), the method comprising:
receiving, from a first electronic device, at least part of the digital signature (par [0026], lines 1-5); and
verifying the digital signature based on the evaluated at least one mathematical function (par [0020], lines 7-9, & par [0045]).
Zaverucha does not explicitly teach receiving, from a first electronic device, at least one checkpoint value corresponding to an expected output of a respective processing step of at least one mathematical function used for verification of the digital signature; and evaluating the at least one mathematical function using the received at least one checkpoint value as an input for a processing step following the respective processing step in a sequence of processing steps of the at least one mathematical function, a first processing step in the sequence and at least one processing step using as an input a respective checkpoint value being independently executed as parallel processes.
However, Fang et al teaches receiving, from a first electronic device, at least one checkpoint value corresponding to an expected output of a respective processing step of at least one mathematical function used for verification of the digital signature (pg. 16, lines 1-4, which discloses a digital signature mathematical checkpoint data being transmitted by a host or connected device); and
evaluating the at least one mathematical function using the received at least one checkpoint value as an input for a processing step following the respective processing step in a sequence of processing steps of the at least one mathematical function (pg. 15, lines 1-11), a first processing step in the sequence and at least one processing step using as an input a respective checkpoint value being independently executed as parallel processes (pg. 16, lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Fang et al within the disclosure of Zaverucha in order to provide the predictive result of improving digital signature recovery by implementing a multi-curve encryption algorithm to allow for restoration of digital signatures for verification without requiring error correction, while reducing false positives obtained during restoration (as disclosed in pg. 4, lines 25-40 of Fang et al).
Regarding claim 8, Zaverucha does not explicitly teach for at least one received checkpoint value corresponding to an expected output of a respective processing step: comparing the expected output with an output of an execution of the respective processing step; and based on the output and the expected output being different outputs, generating information indicative that the received at least one checkpoint value is inconsistent with the signature.
However, Fang et al teaches for at least one received checkpoint value corresponding to an expected output of a respective processing step:
comparing the expected output with an output of an execution of the respective processing step (pg. 10, lines 1-3); and
based on the output and the expected output being different outputs, generating information indicative that the received at least one checkpoint value is inconsistent with the signature (pg. 10, lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Fang et al within the disclosure of Zaverucha according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, Zaverucha and Fang et al teach the limitation of claim 7.
Zaverucha further teaches wherein the digital signature is of an elliptic curve digital signature type (par [0008], lines 1-5), and wherein the at least one mathematical function corresponds to a scalar-point multiplication constructed upon an elliptic curve group operation of point addition (par [0056], lines 1-10), at least one processing step implementing an addition of two points of an elliptic curve associated with the elliptic curve digital signature type (par [0056], lines 8-15).
Regarding claim 10, Zaverucha and Fang et al teach the limitation of claim 7.
Zaverucha further teaches wherein the digital signature comprises a first half (par [0040], lines 1-10, “q represents the public key”) and a second half, the second half being a function of a private key associated with the digital signature (par [0040], lines 1-10, “x represents the private key”), and wherein receiving at least the part of the digital signature and the at least one checkpoint value comprises receiving the first half as the at least part of the digital signature (par [0041], lines 1-5) and receiving a first additional data as a function of an invert of the second half (par [0041], lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 11, Zaverucha and Fang et al teach the limitation of claim 7.
Zaverucha further teaches wherein the digital signature comprises a first half and a second half, the second half being a function of a private key associated with the digital signature, wherein receiving at least the part of the digital signature and the at least one checkpoint value comprises receiving at least one second additional data as a function of a result of at least one of a product between the first half and an invert of the second half (par [0043-0044]) or a product between a hash of the digital message and the invert of the second half, and wherein verifying the digital signature is further based on the at least one second additional data (par [0042], lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 12, Zaverucha and Fang et al teach the limitation of claim 7.
Zaverucha further teaches wherein the digital signature is generated using a hash-based signature algorithm (par [0040], lines 4-10), and wherein the at least one mathematical function corresponds to a composition of hash functions (par [0072], lines 6-11), at least one processing step of the at least one mathematical function implementing at least one of the hash functions (claim 6, lines 10-13).
Regarding claim 14, Zaverucha teaches an electronic device comprising at least one processor (par [0014], lines 1-5) configured to:
generate a digital signature of the digital message (par [0019], lines 10-12, “generates a digital signature for the message”); and
send, to a second electronic device, at least part of the digital signature (par [0032], lines 24-26, “the digital signature can be sent separately from the message”).
Zaverucha does not explicitly teach determining at least one checkpoint value corresponding to an expected output of a respective processing step of at least one mathematical function used for verification of the digital signature and sending, to a second electronic device, the at least one checkpoint value.
However, Fang et al teaches determining at least one checkpoint value corresponding to an expected output of a respective processing step of at least one mathematical function used for verification of the digital signature (pg. 5, lines 20-26, which discloses each digital signature being appended to a checkpoint data set); and
sending, to a second electronic device, the at least one checkpoint value (pg. 16, lines 1-4, which discloses the digital signature mathematical checkpoint data being transmitted by a host or connected device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Fang et al within the disclosure of Zaverucha in order to provide the predictive result of improving digital signature recovery by implementing a multi-curve encryption algorithm to allow for restoration of digital signatures for verification without requiring error correction, while reducing false positives obtained during restoration (as disclosed in pg. 4, lines 25-40 of Fang et al).
Regarding claim 15, Zaverucha and Fang et al teach the limitation of claim 14.
Zaverucha further teaches wherein the digital signature is generated using an elliptic curve digital signature algorithm (par [0008], lines 1-5), and wherein the at least one mathematical function corresponds to a scalar-point multiplication constructed upon an elliptic curve group operation of point addition (par [0056], lines 1-5), at least one processing step of the at least one mathematical function implementing an addition of two points of an elliptic curve associated with the elliptic curve digital signature algorithm (par [0027], lines 14-18).
Regarding claim 16, Zaverucha and Fang et al teach the limitation of claim 14.
Zaverucha further teaches wherein the digital signature comprises a first half (par [0040], lines 1-10, “q represents the public key”) and a second half, the second half being a function of a private key associated with the digital signature (par [0040], lines 1-10, “x represents the private key”), the method further comprising determining first additional data as a function of an invert of the second half (par [0044], lines 1-3), and wherein sending at least the part of the digital signature and the at least one checkpoint value to the second electronic device comprises sending the first half of the digital signature as at least the part of the digital signature (par [0041], lines 1-5) and sending the first additional data (par [0041], lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 17, Zaverucha and Fang et al teach the limitation of claim 14.
Zaverucha further teaches wherein the digital signature comprises a first half and a second half, the second half being a function of a private key associated with the digital signature, the method further comprising determining at least one second additional data as a function of a result of at least one of a product between the first half and an invert of the second half (par [0043-0044]) or a product between a hash of the digital message and the invert of the second half, and wherein sending at least the part of the digital signature and the at least one checkpoint value to the second electronic device comprises sending the at least one second additional data (par [0042], lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 18, Zaverucha and Fang et al teach the limitation of claim 14.
Zaverucha further teaches wherein the digital signature is generated using a hash-based signature algorithm (par [0040], lines 4-10), and wherein the at least one mathematical function corresponds to a composition of hash functions (par [0072], lines 6-11), at least one processing step of the at least one mathematical function implementing at least one of the hash functions (claim 6, lines 10-13).
8. Claims 6, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Zaverucha (US 2013/0097420) in view of Fang et al (KR 2024/0083838 A), further in view of Takbiri et al (US 2025/0317291).
Regarding claim 6, Zaverucha and Fang et al do not explicitly teach wherein the digital signature is generated using module-lattice-based digital signature algorithm, and wherein the at least one mathematical function corresponds to a number theory transformation, at least one processing step of the at least one mathematical function implementing one stage of a lattice of the number theory transformation.
However, Takbiri et al teaches wherein the digital signature is generated using module-lattice-based digital signature algorithm (par [0019], lines 10-15), and wherein the at least one mathematical function corresponds to a number theory transformation (fig. 1 & par [0004]), at least one processing step of the at least one mathematical function implementing one stage of a lattice of the number theory transformation (par [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Takbiri et al within the disclosure of Zaverucha and Fang et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving efficiency in implementing cryptographic schemes for verifying digital signatures and preventing tampering of secure authenticated credentials by incorporating adaption to module lattices (as disclosed in par [0017], lines 18-20 of Takbiri et al) because computational lattices are harder to solve and provided further resistance to attacks.
Regarding claim 13, Zaverucha and Fang et al do not explicitly teach wherein the digital signature is generated using module-lattice-based digital signature algorithm, and wherein the at least one mathematical function corresponds to a number theory transformation, at least one processing step of the at least one mathematical function implementing one stage of a lattice of the number theory transformation.
However, Takbiri et al teaches wherein the digital signature is of a module-lattice-based digital signature algorithm type (par [0019], lines 10-15), and wherein the at least one mathematical function corresponds to a number theory transformation (fig. 1 & par [0004]), at least one processing step of the at least one mathematical function implementing one stage of a lattice of the number theory transformation (par [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Takbiri et al within the disclosure of Zaverucha and Fang et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving efficiency in implementing cryptographic schemes for verifying digital signatures and preventing tampering of secure authenticated credentials by incorporating adaption to module lattices (as disclosed in par [0017], lines 18-20 of Takbiri et al) because computational lattices are harder to solve and provided further resistance to attacks.
Regarding claim 19, Zaverucha and Fang et al do not explicitly teach wherein the digital signature is generated using module-lattice-based digital signature algorithm, and wherein the at least one mathematical function corresponds to a number theory transformation, at least one processing step of the at least one mathematical function implementing one stage of a lattice of the number theory transformation.
However, Takbiri et al teaches wherein the digital signature is generated using module-lattice-based digital signature algorithm (par [0019], lines 10-15), and wherein the at least one mathematical function corresponds to a number theory transformation (fig. 1 & par [0004]), at least one processing step of the at least one mathematical function implementing one stage of a lattice of the number theory transformation (par [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Takbiri et al within the disclosure of Zaverucha and Fang et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving efficiency in implementing cryptographic schemes for verifying digital signatures and preventing tampering of secure authenticated credentials by incorporating adaption to module lattices (as disclosed in par [0017], lines 18-20 of Takbiri et al) because computational lattices are harder to solve and provided further resistance to attacks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy A. Scott whose telephone number is (571) 272-3797. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7:30 am-5:00 pm, second Fridays 7:30 am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Luu Pham can be reached on (571) 270-5002. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RANDY A SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439 20260908
Prosecution Insights