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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/22/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 6, 11 and 12 have been amended. No Claims has been/remains canceled. Claims 1-19 remain pending in the application.
Applicant amendments to the Drawings have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 09/22/2025. The objection has been withdrawn in view of the amended Drawings.
Applicant Terminal Disclaimer to the Claims have overcome the Double Patenting rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 09/22/2025. The rejection has been withdrawn in view of the Terminal Disclaimer.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, on page 9-11 of the remark filed on 01/07/2026 (supplemental amendment), on the newly amended limitations of independent claim 1 “wherein the mixing function comprises mixing the mixer number with the first dataset and wherein the mixing function comprises adding the mixer number within the first dataset;.”, arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pages 9-10 of the remarks filed on 01/07/2026 that the cited references fail to teach wherein the mixing function comprises mixing the mixer number with the first dataset and wherein the mixing function comprises adding the mixer number within the first dataset. Applicant’s interpretation of the reference has been noted; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. Minematsu teaches on Par. (0061-0062) an XOR function mixing the message with the mixer number or random number in the concatenated dataset. Minematsu further discloses on Par. (0038) the mixer number or random number being mixed with a mixing function or encryption technique that combines the message with the random number. The mixer number is then included within the message/dataset. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
However Regarding Applicant’s arguments, on page 9-12 of the remark filed on 12/22/2025, on the newly amended limitations of independent claim 1 “wherein the single-use key is a same size as the encrypted second hash;.”, arguments are persuasive.
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Minematsu et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20120057702) and Sun et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20110246433) further in view of Kumar et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20160054250), has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the following prior art: Tomlinson et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20150163060) in conjunction with Minematsu et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20120057702) and Sun et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20110246433) further in view of Kumar et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20160054250)). Please refer to the 35 U.S.C. 103 section below for a detailed explanation.
For the reasons stated above and the new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 below, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument, see Applicant’s Remarks Page 9-12, regarding allowance of the application. Examiner asserts that claims 1-19 are rejected for the reasons stated above in conjunction with the new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 below.
Conclusion: Minematsu-Sun-Tomlinson-Kumar teaches the aforementioned limitations of independent claims and 1, 6, 11 and 12 rendering the claim limitations obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“at least one processing device configured for”, in claim 11 (see MPEP 2181 I A)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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) 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.
The following is the examiner’s interpretation and suggestions for portions of the claims:
It should be noted that independent claim 11 “at least one processing device configured for”. It becomes difficult as an Examiner to clearly understand the definition and meaning of these limitations as the phrase “processing device” is a generic placeholder and term. The Specification state on Page 12 lines 1-18 “The devices A and B may each be equipped with a processor for executing the steps of the method according to the invention, and with a memory for saving the data required for this execution.”. Therefore, the specification includes sufficient structure for the "processing device”.
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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minematsu et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20120057702, hereinafter referred to as “Minematsu”), Sun et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20110246433, hereinafter referred to as “Sun”) and Tomlinson et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20150163060, hereinafter referred to as “Tomlinson”) further in view of Kumar et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20160054250, hereinafter referred to as “Kumar”)
In regards to Claim 1, Minematsu teaches a method for verifying with an apparatus an integrity of a first dataset originating from a sender, the method comprising: ((Par. (0036); verifying with an apparatus integrity of a message (tag verification apparatus that verifies a message that is transmitted in from the outside)), (Par. (0099) “indicating that message Mr was sent from a legitimate sender.”; originating from a first hardware processor (sent from a legitimate sender))
receiving, using one or more computing device processors, from a sender, a first dataset; ((Figure 6 label 41; receiving message)), (Par. (0037) “to a message for which input was received from the outside, a tag for distinguishing the presence or absence of alteration to this message”; dataset (message received corresponding to identifier (tag))
determining, using the one or more computing device processors, a mixer number, (Par. (0035) “a random number generation unit that, when input of said message is received from the outside, generates a random number that is independent of the message; number/mixer number (random number)) (Par. (0005-0007); message with random number is transmitted and received for verification)
wherein the mixer number is randomly generated, (Par. (0004-0007); number is generated randomly communicated between first and second communication apparatus)
wherein the mixer number is shared with the sender and the apparatus, and wherein the mixer number is not shared with a third party; (Par. (0006-0007); random number (mixer number) is encrypted between first and second communication apparatus only)
obtaining, using the one or more computing device processors, and based on a mixing function, mixed data, (Par. (0035) ”; mixing the mixer number using a mixing function (tag generation apparatus corresponding message and random number that is applied with an encryption function)), (Par. (0038) ”; mixing the mixer number with first dataset using a mixing function (encryption function applied to message/random number associated with tag generation apparatus)), (Figure 6 labels 41-46; mixing the mixer number using a mixing function (message associated with generated random number that is encrypted)),(Par. (0061-0062) ”; the mixing number being an XOR function ))
wherein the mixing function comprises mixing the mixer number with the first dataset and wherein the mixing function comprises adding the mixer number within the first dataset; (Par. (0038) ”; mixing the mixer number with first dataset using a mixing function (encryption function applied to message/random number associated with tag generation apparatus)), (Figure 6 labels 41-46; mixing the mixer number using a mixing function and adding mixer number within dataset (message associated with generated random number that is encrypted)),
generating, using the one or more computing device processors, and based on a hash function, a first hash, wherein the generating the first hash comprises applying the hash function to the mixed data; (Par. (0127-0128); hash values corresponding to random numbers and messages to create second mixed data), (Par. (0035); generates hash value by applying hash function to messages associated with random number))
Minematsu does not explicitly teach receiving, using the one or more computing device processors, from the sender, a second dataset, wherein the second dataset is encrypted, and wherein the second dataset is generated by the sender, wherein generation of the second dataset comprises the sender: obtaining, using the mixing function, based on the mixer number and the first dataset, a result, applying the hash function to the result, thereby generating a second hash, and encrypting, using a single-use key, the second hash, thereby generating an encrypted second hash, wherein the single-use key or the mixer number comprises at least ten bits, wherein the single-use key is a same size as the encrypted second hash; decrypting, using the one or more computing device processors, using the single- use key, the second dataset, thereby generating a decrypted second dataset, wherein the decrypted second dataset comprises the second hash; comparing, using the one or more computing device processors, the first hash with the decrypted second dataset; and2 in response to determining the first hash and the decrypted second dataset are associated, verifying, using the one or more computing device processors, an integrity of the first dataset, wherein verifying the integrity of the first dataset comprises determining the first dataset is not altered during the receiving the first dataset.
Wherein Sun teaches receiving, using the one or more computing device processors, from the sender, a second dataset, wherein the second dataset is encrypted, and wherein the second dataset is generated by the sender, wherein generation of the second dataset comprises the sender: (Par. (0039) “the file 410 can be divided into n pieces of data chunks 520. The data chunk 520 is the smallest data unit that has to be encrypted together. A root random number 560 can be generated as a chain such as, for example, RN1, RN2 and RN3 by the pseudo random number generator 435. The root random number 560 can be stored in trusted data storage, such as the private storage 440 or memory on the MFD 350. The root random number 560 can be generated every time the file 410 is evicted to the public cloud 310. The data chunks 520 associated with the same file 410 shares the same root random number 560.”; generation of second dataset (data pieces divided from data chunk) result by mixing the mixer number with the first dataset (random number generated associated with data chunks) using a mixing function (encrypted together)), (Par. (0041-0043); transmitting data chunks that are encrypted are received by module)
obtaining, using the mixing function, based on the mixer number and the first dataset, a result, (Par. (0041-0043); each data chunk with mixer number (random number) is verified and compared to determine tag and hash)
applying the hash function to the result, thereby generating a second hash, and (Par. (0011) “.”; generating a second hash (hash associated with multiple decrypted hash values) by applying a hash function (hash function) to the result using a single-use key( compare the hash values to decrypted hash)),
encrypting, using a single-use key, the second hash, thereby generating an encrypted second hash, (Par. (0038); data chunks and hash encrypted with symmetric key)
decrypting, using the one or more computing device processors, using the single- use key, the second dataset, thereby generating a decrypted second dataset, wherein the decrypted second dataset comprises the second hash; (Par. (0038); decrypting the second hash (dataset with hash and random number) using a single-use key ( encrypt and decrypt the file including the random number tag and hash function [..] supports a symmetric key)))
comparing, using the one or more computing device processors, the first hash with the decrypted second dataset; and (Par. (0042) “.”; hashes being compared corresponding to second dataset decrypted (decrypted data chunks))
in response to determining the first hash and the decrypted second dataset are associated, (Par. (0041); integrity of the message being ensured (verify data integrity corresponding to message digest and data chunk)), (Par. (0045) “”; second dataset decrypted (decrypted data) and hash obtained (decrypted hash) are identical (match is found the data chunks is valid))
verifying, using the one or more computing device processors, an integrity of the first dataset, wherein verifying the integrity of the first dataset comprises determining the first dataset is not altered during the receiving the first dataset. (Par. (0041); integrity of the message being ensured (verify data integrity corresponding to message digest and data chunk)), (Par. (0045) “”; second dataset decrypted (decrypted data) and hash obtained (decrypted hash) are identical (match is found the data chunks is valid))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Minematsu to incorporate the teaching of Sun to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of digital signatures and various hashing techniques using a mixer number to verify the identity of a sender transmitting a message, with the motivation of confidential data is transmitted over a network is not being sent by an apparatus that is not verified as well as an apparatus that could possibly intercept, modify or alter the data before being sent to a legitimate and authorized recipient. This proves vital in instances such as an automobile on the road or RFID tags on a computer in an event. By implementing this process the user is provided a way to identify the correct and authorized entity of the sender. (Sun Par. (0002-0004))
Minematsu and Sun do not explicitly teach wherein the single-use key or the mixer number comprises at least ten bits, wherein the single-use key is a same size as the encrypted second hash;
Wherein Tomlinson teaches wherein the single-use key is a same size as the encrypted second hash; (Par. (0179-0180); symmetric key has a matching key size with encrypted block that contains hash digest)), (Par. (0162-0163); second hash (Plurality of hash digests))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teaching of Tomlinson with the teaching of Minematsu and Sun by including the feature of random number including a ten bit value because of the analogous concept of secure transmission of data using key exchanges with the motivation of having same size key and hash values to not deduce and predict messages and lead to error of possible attacks based on the size. (Tomlinson Par. (0008))
Minematsu, Sun and Tomlinson do not explicitly teach wherein the single-use key or the mixer number comprises at least ten bits,
Wherein Kumar teaches wherein the single-use key or the mixer number comprises at least ten bits; ((Par. (0051-0052); random number (random number) includes ten bits)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teaching of Kumar with the teaching of Minematsu and Sun by including the feature of random number including a ten bit value because of the analogous concept of secure transmission of data with random numbers with the motivation of transmitting messages and signals without concerns of detection or miscommunication within the system. By having a random number with a specific bit value computing devices in communication can relay information more efficiently without risk of detection. (Kumar Par. (0003-0005 and 0031))
In regards to Claim 2, the combination of Minematsu, Sun, Tomlinson and Kumar teach the method of claim 1, Sun further teaches wherein the single-use key is a constant. ((Par. (0038); data chunks and hash encrypted with symmetric key)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Minematsu, Tomlinson and Kumar to incorporate the teaching of Sun for the reasons discussed in independent claim 1 stated above.
In regards to Claim 4, the combination of Minematsu, Sun, Tomlinson and Kumar teach the method of claim 1, Minematsu further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the determining the mixer number comprises receiving the mixer number, (Par. (0035) “a random number generation unit that, when input of said message is received from the outside, generates a random number that is independent of the message; number/mixer number (random number)) (Par. (0005-0007); message with random number is transmitted and received for verification)
wherein the mixer number is encrypted. (Par. (0006-0007); random number (mixer number) is encrypted between first and second communication apparatus only)
In regards to Claim 5, the combination of Minematsu, Sun, Tomlinson and Kumar teach the method of claim 1, Sun further teaches wherein the hash function comprises: SHAL, SHA2, SHA256, MD5, or the Jenkins function. ((Par. (0037) “”; hash function being chosen among SHA1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Minematsu, Tomlinson and Kumar and to incorporate the teaching of Sun for the reasons discussed in independent claim 1 stated above.
In regards to Claim 6, claim 6 is an independent claim that recites similar limitations to independent claim 1 and the teachings of Minematsu, Sun, Tomlinson and Kumar address all the limitations discussed in independent claim 1 and is thereby rejected under the same grounds.
In regards to Claim 7, the combination of Minematsu, Sun, Tomlinson and Kumar teach the method of claim 1, Sun further teaches wherein the mixer number is encrypted using the single-use key, and ((Par. (0038); data chunks and hash encrypted with symmetric key)
wherein the mixer number is decrypted by the sender. ((Par. (0038); decrypting the second hash (dataset with hash and random number) using a single-use key ( encrypt and decrypt the file including the random number tag and hash function [..]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Minematsu, Tomlinson and Kumar to incorporate the teaching of Sun for the reasons discussed in independent claim 1 stated above.
In regards to Claim 8, the combination of Minematsu, Sun, Tomlinson and Kumar teach the method of claim 1, Minematsu further teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising sending, using the one or more computing device processors, an identifier associated with the mixer number to the sender, (Par. (0010); sending identifier (tag) and mixer number (random number) to sender or destination of the message)
Minematsu does not explicitly teach wherein the sender, using the identifier associated with the mixer number, retrieves the mixer number from a file or a memory.
Wherein Sun teaches wherein the sender, using the identifier associated with the mixer number, retrieves the mixer number from a file or a memory. (Par. (0009); receiving a file with random number and data chunks that contain hash and tag (identifier)), (Par. (0035-0037); using the identifier (tag contaminated with random number with data chunk and file))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Minematsu. Tomlinson and Kumar to incorporate the teaching of Sun for the reasons discussed in independent claim 1 stated above.
In regards to Claim 9, the combination of Minematsu, Sun, Tomlinson and Kumar teach the method of claim 1, Minematsu further teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising receiving, using the one or more computing device processors, an identifier associated with the mixer number, ((Par. (0010); sending identifier (tag) and mixer number (random number) to sender or destination of the message)
wherein the verifying the integrity of the first dataset is based on the identifier associated with the mixer number. (Par. (0005), (0012-0013), (0036-0037); verifying the message with mixer number and tag to determine if message has been altered based on comparing identifier (tag))
In regards to Claim 10, the combination of Minematsu, Sun, Tomlinson and Kumar teach the method of claim 1, Sun further teaches wherein a number associated with the identifier associated with the mixer number is retrieved from a memory, a file, or a data server, and (Par. (0009); receiving a file with random number and data chunks that contain hash and tag (identifier)), (Par. (0035-0037); using the identifier (tag contaminated with random number with data chunk and file))
wherein the number associated with the identifier associated with the mixer number comprises the mixer number. (Par. (0035-0037); tag with random number is concatenated with data chunks)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Minematsu, Tomlinson and Kumar to incorporate the teaching of Sun for the reasons discussed in independent claim 1 stated above.
In regards to Claim 11, claim 11 is an independent claim that recites similar limitations to independent claim 1 and the teachings of Minematsu, Sun, Tomlinson and Kumar address all the limitations discussed in independent claim 1 and is thereby rejected under the same grounds.
In regards to Claim 12, Minematsu teaches a method for verifying with an apparatus an integrity of a first dataset originating from a sender, the method comprising: ((Par. (0036); verifying with an apparatus integrity of a message (tag verification apparatus that verifies a message that is transmitted in from the outside)), (Par. (0099) “indicating that message Mr was sent from a legitimate sender.”; originating from a first hardware processor (sent from a legitimate sender))
receiving, using one or more computing device processors, from a sender, a first dataset; ((Figure 6 label 41; receiving message)), (Par. (0037) “to a message for which input was received from the outside, a tag for distinguishing the presence or absence of alteration to this message”; dataset (message received corresponding to identifier (tag))
determining, using the one or more computing device processors, a mixer number, (Par. (0035) “a random number generation unit that, when input of said message is received from the outside, generates a random number that is independent of the message; number/mixer number (random number)) (Par. (0005-0007); message with random number is transmitted and received for verification)
wherein the mixer number is randomly generated, wherein the mixer number is shared with the sender and the apparatus, (Par. (0004-0007); number is generated randomly communicated between first and second communication apparatus)
wherein the mixer number is not shared with a third party, (Par. (0006-0007); random number (mixer number) is encrypted between first and second communication apparatus only)
obtaining, using the one or more computing device processors, and based on a mixing function, mixed data, (Par. (0035) ”; mixing the mixer number using a mixing function (tag generation apparatus corresponding message and random number that is applied with an encryption function)), (Par. (0038) ”; mixing the mixer number with first dataset using a mixing function (encryption function applied to message/random number associated with tag generation apparatus)), (Figure 6 labels 41-46; mixing the mixer number using a mixing function (message associated with generated random number that is encrypted)),(Par. (0061-0062) ”; the mixing number being an XOR function ))
wherein the mixing function comprises mixing the mixer number with the first dataset and wherein the mixing function comprises adding the mixer number within the first dataset; (Par. (0038) ”; mixing the mixer number with first dataset using a mixing function (encryption function applied to message/random number associated with tag generation apparatus)), (Figure 6 labels 41-46; mixing the mixer number using a mixing function and adding mixer number within dataset (message associated with generated random number that is encrypted)),
generating, using the one or more computing device processors, and based on a hash function, a first hash, wherein the generating the first hash comprises applying the hash function to the mixed data, and (Par. (0127-0128); hash values corresponding to random numbers and messages to create second mixed data), (Par. (0035); generates hash value by applying hash function to messages associated with random number))
Minematsu does not explicitly teach wherein the mixer number is associated with at least one physical quantity; wherein the hash function comprises: SHAl, SHA2, SHA256, MD5, or the Jenkins function; receiving, using the one or more computing device processors, from the sender, a second dataset, wherein the second dataset is encrypted, and wherein the second dataset is generated by the sender, wherein generation of the second dataset comprises the sender: obtaining, using the mixing function, based on the mixer number and the first dataset, a result, applying the hash function to the result, thereby generating a second hash, and encrypting, using a single-use key, the second hash, thereby generating an encrypted second hash, wherein the single-use key or the mixer number comprises at least ten bits, wherein the single-use key is a same size as the encrypted second hash; decrypting, using the one or more computing device processors, using the single- use key, the second dataset, thereby generating a decrypted second dataset, wherein the decrypted second dataset comprises the second hash; comparing, using the one or more computing device processors, the first hash with the decrypted second dataset; and in response to determining the first hash and the decrypted second dataset are associated, verifying, using the one or more computing device processors, an integrity of the first dataset, wherein verifying the integrity of the first dataset comprises determining the first dataset is not altered during the receiving the first dataset.
Wherein Sun teaches wherein the hash function comprises: SHAl, SHA2, SHA256, MD5, or the Jenkins function; (Par. (0037) “”; hash function being chosen among SHA1)
receiving, using the one or more computing device processors, from the sender, a second dataset, wherein the second dataset is encrypted, and wherein the second dataset is generated by the sender, wherein generation of the second dataset comprises the sender: (Par. (0039) “the file 410 can be divided into n pieces of data chunks 520. The data chunk 520 is the smallest data unit that has to be encrypted together. A root random number 560 can be generated as a chain such as, for example, RN1, RN2 and RN3 by the pseudo random number generator 435. The root random number 560 can be stored in trusted data storage, such as the private storage 440 or memory on the MFD 350. The root random number 560 can be generated every time the file 410 is evicted to the public cloud 310. The data chunks 520 associated with the same file 410 shares the same root random number 560.”; generation of second dataset (data pieces divided from data chunk) result by mixing the mixer number with the first dataset (random number generated associated with data chunks) using a mixing function (encrypted together)), (Par. (0041-0043); transmitting data chunks that are encrypted are received by module)
obtaining, using the mixing function, based on the mixer number and the first dataset, a result, (Par. (0041-0043); each data chunk with mixer number (random number) is verified and compared to determine tag and hash)
applying the hash function to the result, thereby generating a second hash, and (Par. (0011) “.”; generating a second hash (hash associated with multiple decrypted hash values) by applying a hash function (hash function) to the result using a single-use key( compare the hash values to decrypted hash)),
encrypting, using a single-use key, the second hash, thereby generating an encrypted second hash, (Par. (0038); data chunks and hash encrypted with symmetric key)
decrypting, using the one or more computing device processors, using the single- use key, the second dataset, thereby generating a decrypted second dataset, wherein the decrypted second dataset comprises the second hash; (Par. (0038); decrypting the second hash (dataset with hash and random number) using a single-use key ( encrypt and decrypt the file including the random number tag and hash function [..] supports a symmetric key)))
comparing, using the one or more computing device processors, the first hash with the decrypted second dataset; and (Par. (0042) “.”; hashes being compared corresponding to second dataset decrypted (decrypted data chunks))
in response to determining the first hash and the decrypted second dataset are associated, (Par. (0041); integrity of the message being ensured (verify data integrity corresponding to message digest and data chunk)), (Par. (0045) “”; second dataset decrypted (decrypted data) and hash obtained (decrypted hash) are identical (match is found the data chunks is valid))
verifying, using the one or more computing device processors, an integrity of the first dataset, wherein verifying the integrity of the first dataset comprises determining the first dataset is not altered during the receiving the first dataset. (Par. (0041); integrity of the message being ensured (verify data integrity corresponding to message digest and data chunk)), (Par. (0045) “”; second dataset decrypted (decrypted data) and hash obtained (decrypted hash) are identical (match is found the data chunks is valid))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Minematsu to incorporate the teaching of Sun to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of digital signatures and various hashing techniques using a mixer number to verify the identity of a sender transmitting a message, with the motivation of confidential data is transmitted over a network is not being sent by an apparatus that is not verified as well as an apparatus that could possibly intercept, modify or alter the data before being sent to a legitimate and authorized recipient. This proves vital in instances such as an automobile on the road or RFID tags on a computer in an event. By implementing this process the user is provided a way to identify the correct and authorized entity of the sender. (Sun Par. (0002-0004))
Minematsu and Sun do not explicitly teach wherein the mixer number is associated with at least one physical quantity; wherein the single-use key or the mixer number comprises at least ten bits, wherein the single-use key is a same size as the encrypted second hash;
Wherein Tomlinson teaches wherein the single-use key is a same size as the encrypted second hash; (Par. (0179-0180); symmetric key has a matching key size with encrypted block that contains hash digest)), (Par. (0162-0163); second hash (Plurality of hash digests))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teaching of Tomlinson with the teaching of Minematsu and Sun by including the feature of random number including a ten bit value because of the analogous concept of secure transmission of data using key exchanges with the motivation of having same size key and hash values to not deduce and predict messages and lead to error of possible attacks based on the size. (Tomlinson Par. (0008))
Minematsu, Sun and Tomlinson do not explicitly teach wherein the mixer number is associated with at least one physical quantity; wherein the single-use key or the mixer number comprises at least ten bits,
Wherein Kumar teaches wherein the mixer number is associated with at least one physical quantity; (Par. (0051-0052); ten bit random number (mixer number) is based on time or regular intervals) (Examiner note: In the specification on page 4 lines 1-15 the phrase “physical quantities” is described to include one of the following: time, temp or quantum. Therefore it will be broadly and reasonably interpreted that physical quantity refers to a portion of time)
wherein the single-use key or the mixer number comprises at least ten bits; (Par. (0051-0052); miner number (random number) includes ten bits)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teaching of Kumar with the teaching of Minematsu, Sun and Tomlinson by including the feature of random number including a ten bit value because of the analogous concept of secure transmission of data with random numbers with the motivation of transmitting messages and signals without concerns of detection or miscommunication within the system. By having a random number with a specific bit value computing devices in communication can relay information more efficiently without risk of detection. (Kumar Par. (0003-0005 and 0031))
In regards to Claim 13, the combination of Minematsu, Sun, Tomlinson and Kumar teach the method of claim 12, Minematsu further teaches the method according to claim 12, wherein the determining the mixer number comprises receiving the mixer number, (Par. (0035) “a random number generation unit that, when input of said message is received from the outside, generates a random number that is independent of the message; number/mixer number (random number)) (Par. (0005-0007); message with random number is transmitted and received for verification)
wherein the mixer number is encrypted. (Par. (0006-0007); random number (mixer number) is encrypted between first and second communication apparatus only)
In regards to Claim 14, the combination of Minematsu, Sun, Tomlinson and Kumar teach the method of claim 12, Minematsu further teaches the method according to claim 12, further comprising sending, using the one or more computing device processors, an identifier associated with the mixer number to the sender, (Par. (0010); sending identifier (tag) and mixer number (random number) to sender or destination of the message)
Minematsu does not explicitly teach wherein the sender, using the identifier associated with the mixer number, retrieves the mixer number from a file or a memory.
Wherein Sun teaches wherein the sender, using the identifier associated with the mixer number, retrieves the mixer number from a file or a memory. (Par. (0009); receiving a file with random number and data chunks that contain hash and tag (identifier)), (Par. (0035-0037); using the identifier (tag contaminated with random number with data chunk and file))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Minematsu, Tomlinson and Kumar to incorporate the teaching of Sun for the reasons discussed in independent claim 1 stated above.
In regards to Claim 15, the combination of Minematsu, Sun, Tomlinson and Kumar teach the method of claim 12, Minematsu further teaches the method according to claim 12, further comprising receiving an identifier associated with the mixer number, ((Par. (0010); sending identifier (tag) and mixer number (random number) to sender or destination of the message)
wherein the verifying the integrity of the first dataset is based on the identifier associated with the mixer number. (Par. (0005), (0012-0013), (0036-0037); verifying the message with mixer number and tag to determine if message has been altered based on comparing identifier (tag))
In regards to Claim 16, the combination of Minematsu, Sun, Tomlinson and Kumar teach the method of claim 12, Sun further teaches wherein a number associated with the identifier associated with the mixer number is retrieved from a memory, a file, or a data server, and (Par. (0009); receiving a file with random number and data chunks that contain hash and tag (identifier)), (Par. (0035-0037); using the identifier (tag contaminated with random number with data chunk and file))
wherein the number associated with the identifier associated with the mixer number comprises the mixer number. (Par. (0035-0037); tag with random number is concatenated with data chunks)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Minematsu, Tomlinson and Kumar to incorporate the teaching of Sun for the reasons discussed in independent claim 1 stated above.
In regards to Claim 17, the combination of Minematsu, Sun, Tomlinson and Kumar teach the method of claim 1, Minematsu further teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: receiving, using the one or more computing device processors, from the sender, an identifier associated with the first dataset; and (Par. (0010); sending identifier (tag) and mixer number (random number) concatenated to sender or destination of the message)
identifying, using the one or more computing device processors, based on the identifier associated with the first dataset, the first dataset. (Par. (0005), (0012-0013), (0036-0037); verifying the message with mixer number and tag to determine if message has been altered based on comparing identifier (tag))
In regards to Claim 18, the combination of Minematsu, Sun, Tomlinson and Kumar teach the method of claim 1, Minematsu further teaches the method according to claim 17, wherein the identifier associated with the first dataset comprises an identifier associated with the sender. (Par. (0010); sending identifier (tag) and mixer number (random number) concatenated to sender or destination of the message)
In regards to Claim 19, the combination of Minematsu, Sun, Tomlinson and Kumar teach the method of claim 1, Minematsu further teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising receiving, using the one or more computing device processors, from the sender, an identifier associated with the sender. (Par. (0010); sending identifier (tag) and mixer number (random number) concatenated to sender or destination of the message)
Claim 3, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minematsu et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20120057702, hereinafter referred to as “Minematsu”), Sun et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20110246433, hereinafter referred to as “Sun”) Tomlinson et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20150163060, hereinafter referred to as “Tomlinson”)and Kumar et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20160054250, hereinafter referred to as “Kumar”) further in view of Kasibhatla et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180145957, hereinafter referred to as “Kasibhatla”)
In regards to Claim 3, the combination of Minematsu, Sun, Tomlinson and Kumar do not explicitly teach generating, using the one or more computing device processors, the at least two failed verification attempts; and sending, using the one or more computing device processors, a verification result to the sender.
Wherein Kasibhatla teaches generating, using the one or more computing device processors, the at least two failed verification attempts; and (Par. (0040); after a number of failed attempts, terminating )
sending, using the one or more computing device processors, a verification result to the sender. (Par. (0030); message sent from application server when the password and access is incorrect with prompt)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified of Minematsu, Sun, Tomlinson and Kumar to incorporate the teaching of Kasibhatla to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of hash based verification, with the motivation of protecting the integrity of the message and exchange in the network by terminating after an attempt of a certain amount of times is performed to securely protect the sensitive data from harm and compare hash values to find true authenticity of users in the network. (Kasibhatla Par. (0002-0004))
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
HANSEN MADS (WO No. 03007228) “ENCRYPTION PROTOCOL”. Considered this reference because it was included in the IDS as well as it addressed hashing techniques using encryption functions as well as common concepts similar to the instant application using mixer numbers and the transmitting of information to identify a sender.
Hars; Laszlo (U.S Pub. No. 20180176011) “METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR GENERATION OF CIPHER ROUND KEYS BY BIT-MIXERS”. Considered this application because it relates to similar principles of the instant application by using mixer numbers and XOR functions with datasets to enhance cryptographic operations
JARCHAFJIAN; Harout (U.S Pub. No. 20180324152) “SECURELY RECOGNIZING MOBILE DEVICES”. Considered this application because it addressed similar concepts such as a mixer number, and the comparison of hash value of multiple datasets as well as the mixing of a message and mixer number with an identification component in the verification process.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN A HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3554. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5pm.
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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. 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 https://ppair-y.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/H.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2497
/ELENI A SHIFERAW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2497