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
This is in response to the original filing of 05/14/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
19208312 filed 05/14/2025 is a continuation of PCT/KR2023/017257, filed 11/01/2023; claims foreign priority to 10-2022-0163173, filed 11/29/2022.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 05/14/2025 are accepted.
Specification
The amendment to the specification filed on 05/14/2025 is accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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 1-2, 8-9, 11-12, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 as being anticipated by Hart et al U.S. 2021/0029096 A1.
Claims 1 and 11: Hart et al teaches a method for encrypting data by a user device , a user device (Hart et al, claim 1, [0032], Client 1 / data creator 310 (a laptop, smartphone, etc. running client software) performs a method that encrypts a data payload), comprising:
at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry;
memory (Hart et al teaches at Figs. 1, 2 & 3, each client device includes a memory and processor. Hart et al's client computing device (laptop/smartphone) executing client software, as discussed above); and
one or more programs, the one or more programs stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors (Hart et al teaches at Figs. 1, 2 & 3, each client device includes a memory and processor),
wherein the one or more programs comprises instructions, and at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to execute the instructions, and to cause the user device to perform (Hart et al teaches at Figs. 1, 2 & 3, each client device includes a memory and processor):
obtaining a first seed (Seed A) from an external device (Hart et al teaches at [0025], [0029], [0045], claim 1” receiving a first seed and a formula from a command and control server” "At process node 130, Client 1 receives Seed A and decrypts it using the AES session key." The CCS is a server external to the client device. Step(7));
generating a second seed (seed B) in response to obtaining the first seed (Hart et al teaches at [0023], [0028]-[0029], claim 1“generating a second seed;” “Creator decrypts Seed A and the formula using private key.”(step 8) then “Creator generates Seed B on local device via a PRNG” (step 9) Seed B generation is sequenced after , and thus performed in response to , obtaining Seed A);
generating a first encryption key based on the first seed and the second seed (Hart et al teaches at [0038]-[0039], “Data creator 310 then combines Seed A and Seed B using the decrypted formula to create Seed C, the Data Seed”, “ Data creator 310 uses the Data Seed (Seed C) to generate AES Key 2 (step 13)); and
encrypting data using the first encryption key (Hart et al teaches at [0023], {0038]-[0039], “ Creator uses AES Key 2 to encrypt payload(Step14)”).
Claims 2 and 12: Hart et al teaches wherein obtaining the first seed from the external device comprises:
requesting transmission of the first seed to the external device (Hart et al teaches at [0023], "Creator requests permission from a Command & Control Server (CCS)... to create a secure container" (step 2); Hart Claim 3: "sending a request to create said secure container to said command and control server prior to said receiving."); and
receiving the first seed from the external device in response to the request (Hart et al teaches at "Server passes encrypted Seed A and the formula to client via SSL or... TLS" (step 7); Hart Claim 2: "receiving an encrypted first seed and an encrypted formula from said command and control server; and decrypting").
Claims 8 and 18: Hart et al teaches
wherein the first seed and the second seed comprise a random number of at least 16 bytes or at least 32 bytes (Hart et al teaches at [002], [0038], claims 6 &7, discusses AES-128 (16-byte key) and higher-complexity AES variants (32-byte/AES-256 key) as conventional industry standards, and separately teaches generating Seed B "using the PRNG with an adequate size" for cryptographic strength).
Claims 9 and 19: Hart et al teaches
further comprising transmitting the encrypted data to the external device (Hart et al teaches at [0023], [0026], "Client 1 sends the secure container to a storage server, such as a cloud storage server... securely using TLS/2048.").
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.
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart et al U.S. 2021/0029096 A1 in view of Zhou 2021/0194877 A1.
Claims 3 and 13: Hart et al teaches
wherein requesting the transmission of the first seed is triggered based on detecting a backup event (Hart et al teaches at [0024], [0035]-[0036], "Subsequently, data creator 310 desires to store data securely on storage server 330... At this point, data creator 310 sends a request to create a secure container to CCS 320." Obvious to characterize this data-storage-triggering desire/request as a "backup event" under BRI ), Zhou further teaches at [0035]-[0036] “the trigger request is used to instruct the cloud manager to trigger a first cloud encryptor to store a root key seed, an operating policy, a data key seed, and a data key identifier, and trigger a database proxy to store an encryption data dictionary”, “The cloud manager triggers, according to the trigger request, a first cloud encryptor to store a root key seed, an operating policy, a data key seed, and a data key identifier, and triggers a database proxy to store an encryption data dictionary.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Hart et al with the additional features of Lin in order to improve the security of data transmission between the client 110 and the cloud manager 130, as suggested by Zhou [0028].
Claims 4 and 14: the combination teaches
wherein the backup event is detected based on receiving an input requesting data backup or specified reservation information (Hart et al teaches at [0024], [0035]-[0036], "[I]n response to user input, said data creator sends a request to said command and control server to create a secure container for secure transmission and storage of a data payload" ), Zhou further teaches at [0035]-[0036] ).
The same motivation to modify Hart et al in view of Zhou applied to claims 3 and 13 above applies here.
Claims 5-7 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart et al U.S. 2021/0029096 A1 in view of Zhou 2021/0194877 A1 in further view of Vanek et al U.S. 11,128, 452 B2.
Claims 5 and 15: the combination fails to teach, however Vanek et al in the same fields of endeavor teaches
wherein the encrypting is performed in one of a first encryption mode configured to encrypt the data using a first encryption key, or a second encryption mode configured to encrypt the data using a second encryption key different from the first encryption key (Vanek et al teaches at col.4, ll.35-47, Fig.4, different encryption algorithm such as 3DES , AES, Blowfish with read on first or second encryption mode).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Hart et al with the additional features of Vanek et al in order to provide data encryption, and more particularly, to shared data encryption with a hierarchical key structure, as suggested by Vanek et al col.1, ll.14-16.
Claims 6 and 16: the combination teaches further comprising:
in response to detection of the backup event in the first encryption mode, encrypting the data using the first encryption key (Hart et al teaches at [0023], ("Creator uses AES Key 2 to encrypt payload" (step 14), Lin teaches at [0065]-[0066]); and
transmitting the encrypted data to the external device (Hart et al teaches at [0023], [0026], "Client 1 sends the secure container to a storage server, such as a cloud storage server... securely using TLS/2048).
Claims 7 and 17: the combination teaches
in response to detection of the backup event in the second encryption mode, transmitting the data to the external device so that the external device encrypts the data using the second encryption key (Zhou further teaches Fig.6, further teaches at [0151]-[0153] “ the first cloud encryptor encrypts the first data by using the root key seed and the data key seed that correspond to the data key identifier).
The same motivation to modify Hart et al in view of Zhou applied to claims 5 and 15 above applies here.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart et al U.S. 2021/0029096 A1 in view of Jang et al 2022/0239509 A1.
Claims 10 and 20: Hart et al fails to teach, however Jang et al in the same field of endeavor teaches
further comprising providing the second seed to a blockchain network including a plurality of nodes (Jang et al teaches at [0012]-[0015], [0095]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Hart et al with the additional features of Jang et al in order to provide data encryption, and more particularly, to shared data encryption with a hierarchical key structure, as suggested by Jang et al col.1, ll.14-16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Biran U.S. 2022/0321329 A1 dictionary-attack-resistant database encryption.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATOUMATA TRAORE whose telephone number is (571)270-1685. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHEWAYE GELAGAY can be reached at 5712724219. 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.
Wednesday, July 15, 2026
/FATOUMATA TRAORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Prosecution Insights