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
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Any references to applicant’s specification are made by way of applicant’s U.S. pre-grant printed patent publication.
This action is in response to the communication filed on 8/7/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant’s specification fails to adequately describe the method step of “…abbreviating the stream cipher based on integer-oriented cryptographic permutations as SSC” (e.g. line 4, 5). Specifically, the applicant fails to disclose what is meant by “abbreviating” a stream cipher and the steps or processes required to “abbreviate” a stream cipher “based on integer-oriented cryptographic permutations as SSC”.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant’s specification fails to adequately describe the “…an integrated SSC operation…” (e.g. line 6, 7). Specifically, the applicant fails to disclose the meaning of an operation falling within the scope of an “integrated SSC operation”.
Claims 2 – 10 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “…abbreviating the stream cipher based on integer-oriented cryptographic permutations as SSC” (e.g. line 4, 5) renders the scope of the claims indefinite. Specifically, the idea of “abbreviating” a steam cipher lacks any standard meaning to those having ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, the applicant fails to disclose what is meant by “abbreviating” a stream cipher and the steps or processes required to “abbreviate” a stream cipher “based on integer-oriented cryptographic permutations as SSC”. Thus, the claimed scope is rendered unclear.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “…SSC …” (e.g. line 5) renders the scope of the claims indefinite. Specifically, the acronym “SSC” lacks any standardized meaning within the art. Furthermore, the applicant’s specification fails to provide a clear definition to the acronym “SSC”. The examiner notes that within the art of stream ciphers, the acronym “SSC” has been used to reference various concepts, such as “small-state stream cipher”, “software-oriented stream cipher”, or “synchronous stream cipher”. However, the applicant’s disclosure does not appear to define “SSC” according to any of these meanings. Thus, the scope of the claimed subject matter is rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “…an integrated SSC operation…” (e.g. line 6, 7) renders the scope of the claims indefinite. Specifically, the concept of an “integrated SSC operation” lacks any standard meaning within the art. Furthermore, the applicant’s specification fails to disclose the meaning of an integrated SSC operation. Thus, the scope of the claimed subject matter is rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “…the specific method for generating the keystream via the integrated SSC operation…” lacks antecedent basis. Specifically, antecedent basis exists for “…generating a keystream after an integrated SSC operation…” (e.g. claim 1, line 6, 7). Antecedent basis does not exist for the idea of generating a keystream via an integrated SSC operation. Thus, the scope of the claims are rendered indefinite.
Dependent claims are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rivest et al. (Rivest), “Spritz – a spongy RC4-like stream cipher and hash function”.
Regarding claim 1, as noted above, it is not clear as to the actual scope of the claim language. However, as best determined in view of the above noted deficiencies of clarity, Rivest discloses:
An encryption and decryption method using a stream cipher based on integer-oriented cryptographic permutations (e.g. Rivest, Abstract), wherein the encryption and decryption method comprises the following steps:
abbreviating the stream cipher based on integer-oriented cryptographic permutations as SSC (e.g. Rivest, Abstract; fig. 1);
for encryption: receiving a plaintext sequence (e.g. Rivest, sect. 2.2 – message M);
generating a keystream after an integrated SSC operation (e.g. Rivest, sect. 2.2 – KeySetup (k) ), given an original key (key), an initialization vector (IV) (e.g. Rivest, sect. 2.2 – K, IV), rounds of mixing (rom), rounds of generation (rog), and a state refresh threshold (srt) (e.g. Rivest, sect. 2.2 – Encrypt (K, M); fig. 2; page 8 – Absorb, AbsorbByte, AbsorbNibble, AbsorbStop – herein the Encrypt function comprising rounds of state updates – i.e. rog, and rounds of shuffling – i.e. rom using Absorb functions that process portions of the message, wherein the processing rounds continues until a state refresh threshold, i.e. AbsorbStop ; e.g. Rivest, sect. 8.1.1);
then performing an XOR operation between the plaintext sequence and the keystream generated to obtain a ciphertext sequence (e.g. Rivest, sect. 2.2 – Spritz-XOR);
for decryption: receiving a ciphertext sequence (e.g. Rivest, 2.2, Decrypt of encrypted message C);
generating a keystream after an integrated SSC operation (e.g. Rivest, sect. 2.2 – KeySetup (k) as part of Decrypt function), given an original key (key), an initialization vector (IV) (e.g. Rivest, sect. 2.2 – K, IV – note Decrypt is identical to Encrypt so as to reverse the ciphertext), rounds of mixing (rom), rounds of generation (rog), and a state refresh threshold (srt) e.g. Rivest, sect. 2.2 – Decrypt (K, C); fig. 2; Squeeze function comprising state update rounds and shuffling rounds for processing portions of the ciphertext until all portions of the ciphertext has been processed, i.e. state update threshold);
then performing an XOR operation between the ciphertext sequence and the keystream generated to obtain a plaintext sequence (e.g. Rivest, sect. 2.2 – Spritz-XOR);
the specific method for generating the keystream via the integrated SSC operation is as follows: initializing an internal state by means of a reset function (e.g. Rivest, fig. 2 – InitializeState(N));
updating the internal state by means of an internal state update function, utilizing the original key (key) (e.g. Rivest, fig. 2 – Update()) ;
further updating the internal state, which has been updated by the original key (key), by means of the internal state update function, utilizing the initialization vector (IV) (e.g. Rivest, sect. 2.2 – Absorb(IV));
generating the keystream by means of a keystream generation function based on the given original key (key), initialization vector (IV), rounds of mixing (rom), rounds of generation (rog), and state refresh threshold (srt) (e.g. Rivest, sect. 2.2 – KeySetup (k), sect. 2.2 – K, IV; sect. 2.2 – Encrypt (K, M); fig. 2; page 8 – Absorb, AbsorbByte, AbsorbNibble, AbsorbStop; sect. 8.1.1);
refreshing the internal state by means of a refresh function each time the keystream generation function has been invoked for srt times, until the keystream generated reaches a required length (e.g. Rivest, sect. 2.1 AbsorbStop Function; sect. 3.2 – call of Absorb function until the full length of the message has been processed).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
See Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY L WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7965. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on 571-272-3739. 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.
/JEFFERY L WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
