DETAILED ACTION
The present Office Action is in response to an application filed on 06/02/2025 wherein claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12323402. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations not expressly recited in the patented claims but recited in the instant claims, specifically “wherein the first key is distinct from the second key” (see claims 1 and 12 of the instant application) are implied throughout the patented claims, particularly in light of the specifications. All other elements of the instant claims are expressly recited in the patented claims. Therefore, the instant claims and the patented claims are not patentably distinct from each other.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over prior art.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must address all other outstanding issues (i.e., Double Patenting).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Pending claims have been given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art.
The closest prior art of record:
Xu et al. (US 20180287738 A1) discloses polar encoding using two or more concatenated cyclic redundancy check (CRC) data values for enhancing CRC-aided successive cancellation list decoding in a communication system. A polar encoding method may include determining first CRC data from source data, combining the source data and the first CRC data to form first combined data, determining second CRC data from the first combined data, and combining the source data, the first CRC data, and the second CRC data to form second combined data.
Dai et al. (US 20200212933 A1) discloses an encoding method and apparatus in a wireless communications system. The method includes: performing cyclic redundancy check (CRC) encoding on A to-be-encoded information bits based on a CRC polynomial, to obtain a first bit sequence, where the first bit sequence includes L CRC bits and the A information bits; and performing polar encoding on the first bit sequence, where L has a value of one of 3, 4, 5, 8, and 16. Based on an improved CRC polynomial, coding satisfying a false alarm rate (FAR) requirement is implemented.
Hwang et al. (US 20230231706 A1) discloses an autoencoder-based encryption key generation technique, and more particularly, a signal transmission apparatus, a signal reception apparatus, a signal transmission method, and a signal reception method in an autoencoder-based encryption key generation system, wherein an encryption key with enhanced security may be generated on the basis of an autoencoder.
Balasubramanian et al. (US 9225691 B1) discloses methods for deduplicating encrypted files. The methods include receiving a first encrypted data file from a remote source that is encrypted by a first security key. The methods include transmitting to a remote security manager a first key identifier (ID) that is extracted from the first data file, the first key ID identifying the first security key. In response to receiving the first security key from the remote security manager based on the first key ID, decrypting the first data file using the first security key provided by the remote security manager. The methods include deduplicating the decrypted first data file.
Yang et al. (US 20210089863 A1) discloses systems and methods to generate, at an encoder portion of an autoencoder, first output data at least partially based on first input data and to generate, at a decoder portion or the autoencoder, a representation of the first input data at least partially based on the first output data. The one or more processors are configured to generate, at the encoder portion, second output data based on second input data and first state data and to generate, at the decoder portion, a representation of the second input data based on the second output data and second state data. Each of the first state data and the second state data correspond to the state of the decoder portion resulting from generation of the representation of the first input data. The first and second input data correspond to sequential values of a signal to be encoded.
The prior art of record teaches various implementations for generating encoded data from a source data using various techniques, including generating and using keys for encoding and decoding processes employing an encoder-decoder model and/or autoenconder. However, it fails to teach or render obvious the combination of elements and steps as similarly put forth in each independent claim. In particular, none of the prior arts of record, either alone or in combination, discloses all the limitations of the independent claims 1, 12 and 13, including but not limited to: encoding, by the processing system, the first source data in accordance with a first key via an encoder associated with an encoder-decoder model to generate a first source data encoding that is a first output of the encoder and a second key that is a second output of the encoder, wherein the first key is distinct from the second key; and transmitting, by the processing system, the first source data encoding to a recipient system, wherein the second key is for generating a second source data encoding from a second source data for transmission by the processing system to the recipient system, and wherein the first source data is distinct from the second source data; and, applying, by the processing system, the first encoded source data and a first key as inputs to a decoder associated with an encoder-decoder model to obtain a first decoded source data and a second key as outputs, wherein the second key is to be used to obtain a second decoded source data from a second encoded source data, wherein the first key is distinct from the second key, and wherein the first decoded source data is distinct from the second decoded source data.
For instance, neither Xu nor Dai nor Hwang, which are the most relevant art among the closest prior art of record, teach a sender and recipient providing a new key for each encoding-decoding iteration independently (i.e., without the need for sender and recipient to communicate for key synchronization and depending only on a previous key and source/received data). The instant claims, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specifications, require the encoder to dynamically generate each next key based on a previous key and on the data previously encoded with the previous key. Likewise, the decoder decodes received data based upon a current key, and dynamically generates each next key based on the previous key and the encoded data received from the sender. Furthermore, the keys are distinct from the previous key after each iteration.
Therefore, none of the prior arts of record, either alone or in combination, discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 12 and 13. Accordingly, claims 1, 12 and 13 are allowable over the prior art of record. Likewise, the associated claims which depend upon these claims (i.e., claims 2-11 and 14-20) are allowable by virtue of their dependence upon the independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Djelouah et al. (US 20220329876 A1) - Machine Learning Model-Based Video Compression
Hosaka et al. (US 20060222249 A1) - Image-comparing Apparatus, Image-comparing Method, Image-retrieving Apparatus and Image-retrieving Method
Karame et al. (US 11470053 B2) - Privacy-preserving Machine Learning
Kiefer et al. (US 20130061045 A1) - Systems and Methods for Playing Back Alternative Streams Of Protected Content Protected Using Common Cryptographic Information
Mandt et al. (US 20190393903 A1) - Efficient Encoding and Decoding Sequences Using Variational Autoencoders
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIANNE ALVARADO DAVID whose telephone number is (571)272-4228. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Philip Chea can be reached at (571) 272-3951. 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.
/DORIANNE ALVARADO DAVID/Examiner, Art Unit 2499 /PHILIP J CHEA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2499
Prosecution Insights