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
Applicant’s amendment filed 31 December 2025 amends claims 14, 15, 19-22, 26, and 27. Applicant’s amendment has been fully considered and entered.
Examiner’s Amendment
An examiner’s amendment to the record appears below. Should the changes and/or additions be unacceptable to applicant, an amendment may be filed as provided by 37 CFR 1.312. To ensure consideration of such an amendment, it MUST be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee.
Authorization for this examiner’s amendment was given in an interview with Zachary Kezlo (Reg. No. 80,665) on 20 January 2026.
The application has been amended as follows:
For claim 14, delete “soley” from line 5.
For claim 21, delete “soley” from claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 5 of the response, “The PTAB Decision reversed the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the previous §101 have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues on page 6 of the response, “Thus, though Lyon discloses using a ‘list of IP addresses’ to determine communication capabilities…Lyon fails to teach that the determination is based solely on the destination network address.” In response, the “solely” language has been removed from the claims, rendering the above argument moot.
Applicant argues on page 6 of the response, “Determining whether the ‘destination network address’ is part of the list of IP addresses is simply not disclosed by Lyon.” In response, Applicant has failed to fully appreciate the rejection proposed in the Final Rejection dated 02 August 2024 (“Final”) with respect to the Stuntebeck and Lyon references. Specifically, the Final makes it clear that Stuntebeck discloses that the client device 120 can encrypt data to be transmitted to devices that are not able to establish secure communications ([0009] & [0055]) such that the encrypted data is sent to a remote server ([0053]). These devices that are not able to establish secure communication would correspond to the claimed destination devices. Stuntebeck does not specify how it is determined that a device is not able to establish secure communications. Lyon discloses the utilization of a list of IP addresses in order to determine communication capabilities of a device ([0026]). In other words, Stuntebeck does not specify how the cryptographic proxy determines whether the destination devices can establish secure communications and Lyon suggests that one of ordinary skill in the art can determine the communication capabilities of devices using an IP address list. The proposed modification to Stuntebeck presented in the Final was for the the cryptographic proxy service of Stuntebeck to have utilized a list of device IP addresses to determine which devices are able to establish secure communications in order to provide better communication performance by providing communication formats that the device is capable of utilizing as suggested by Lyon ([0026]). Therefore, when modified as proposed, Stunebeck discloses that the determination of whether or not a device is capable of establishing secure communications is based on a list of IP addresses, and since these devices are destination devices, the IP addresses in the list are destination network addresses.
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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 14, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuntebeck, U.S. Publication No. 2015/0372994, in view of Simionescu, U.S. Publication No. 2006/0193265, and further in view of Lyon, U.S. Publication No. 2013/0103848.
Referring to claims 14, 21, Stuntebeck discloses a cryptographic proxy service wherein a client device 120 prepares data for submission to a website server ([0009] & [0045]: user of the client device attempting to submit the data reads on the claimed packet transmission request), which meets the limitation of a packet transmission request. The client device 120 can encrypt data to be transmitted to devices that are not able to establish secure communications ([0009] & [0055]) such that the encrypted data is sent to a remote server ([0053]), which meets the limitation of determining, [based on the acquired network address], whether exchanging an encrypted packet with the destination device by peer to peer (P2P) is possible. The client device 120 encrypts data that is destined for a destination device such as another client device ([0045] & [0052]-[0053]: destination device reads on the claimed destination device) using the public key of the destination device from a security certificate received during the same session ([0052]-[0054]: public key from the security certificate is used to encrypt data for transmission to the destination device and client device retains the security certificate for use “in addition communications with the same data destination” shows that the client device 120 uses the public key from the security certificate to encrypt packets for transmission to the destination device), which meets the limitation generating, when exchanging an encrypted packet with the destination device [by P2P] is possible, a first encrypted packet by encrypting the packet that meets the packet transmission request, in accordance with the an encryption method based on a session established between the device and the destination device, transmitting the first encrypted packet to the destination device [by P2P].
Stuntebeck does not specify the use of a P2P network. Simionescu discloses the utilization of a P2P network ([0006]), which meets the limitation of by peer to peer (P2P), transmitting by P2P. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the cryptographic proxy service of Stuntebeck to have been implemented in a P2P environment in order to enable users to communicate with one another free from the constraints of server-based Internet communications as suggested by Simionescu ([0003]).
Stuntebeck discloses a cryptographic proxy service wherein a client device 120 can encrypt data to be transmitted to devices that are not able to establish secure communications ([0009] & [0055]). Stuntebeck does not specify how it is determined that a device is not able to establish secure communications. Lyon discloses the utilization of a list of IP addresses in order to determine communication capabilities of a device ([0026]: as applied to Stuntebeck, the list would be the destination address since the determination in Stuntebeck is specific to destination devices), which meets the limitation of acquiring, in response to a packet transmission request, a destination network address of a destination device to which the packet transmission request is directed, determining, based on the acquired destination network address. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the cryptographic proxy service of Stuntebeck to have utilized a list of device IP addresses to determine which devices are able to establish secure communications in order to provide better communication performance by providing communication formats that the device is capable of utilizing as suggested by Lyon ([0026]).
Referring to claim 16, Stuntebeck discloses that the client device 120 retains the security certificate for use in addition communications with the same data destination such as when large/extended communication sessions require data to be sent in multiple packets ([0053]: shows that the client device 120 encrypts and sends multiple packets to the destination device), which meets the limitation of transmitting, when exchanging an encrypted packet with the destination device by P2P is possible, a second packet that meets the packet transmission request and differs from the first encrypted packet.
Referring to claim 17, Stuntebeck discloses that the client device 120 transmits communications to the destination device by way of a remote server ([0053]: remote server reads on the claimed device different from the destination device), which meets the limitation of wherein the second packet is transmitted by P2P to a device different from the destination device.
Referring to claims 20, 27, Stuntebeck discloses that the client device 120 retains the security certificate for use in addition communications with the same data destination such as when large/extended communication sessions require data to be sent in multiple packets ([0053]) and the security certificate includes the public key of the destination device ([0052]), which meets the limitation of wherein the acquiring the destination network address of the destination device comprises acquiring a public key of the destination device.
Referring to claim 23, Stuntebeck discloses that the client device 120 retains the security certificate for use in addition communications with the same data destination such as when large/extended communication sessions require data to be sent in multiple packets ([0053]: shows that the client device 120 encrypts and sends multiple packets to the destination device), which meets the limitation of transmitting, when exchanging an encrypted packet with the destination device by P2P is possible, a packet that meets the packet transmission request and differs from the first encrypted packet.
Referring to claim 24, Stuntebeck discloses that the client device 120 transmits communications to the destination device by way of a remote server ([0053]: remote server reads on the claimed device different from the destination device), which meets the limitation of wherein the packet that differs from the first encrypted packet is transmitted by P2P to a device different from the destination device.
Claims 15, 19, 22, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuntebeck, U.S. Publication No. 2015/0372994, in view of Simionescu, U.S. Publication No. 2006/0193265, in view of Lyon, U.S. Publication No. 2013/0103848, and further in view of Shelest, U.S. Publication No. 2007/0061574. Referring to claims 15, 22, Stuntebeck discloses that public/private key pairs are generated and provided to the client devices ([0047] & [0052]). The public key can be transmitted along with a digital certificate issued by a certificate authority ([0058]). Stuntebeck does not disclose that the devices transmit their public key and certificate in a manner that allows for the determination of an IP address.
Shelest discloses devices transmitting messages to other devices that include their device public key and their PDK address ([0035]). The receiving device hashes the received public key and utilizes the generated hash to verify the sender’s address by comparing the hash to the address in the message ([0037]: PKD address is formatted as an IPv6 address [0032]. Therefore, the PDK address can be considered an IP address.), which meets the limitation of wherein in the destination network address from which a determination is made that exchanging an encrypted packet with the destination device by P2P is possible, a value of specific digits is a predetermined value. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the device network addresses of Stuntebeck to have been determined using public key hashes in order to provide an low overhead authentication mechanism to verify a sender’s network address as suggested by Shelest ([0004] & [0006]).
Referring to claims 19, 26, Stuntebeck discloses that public/private key pairs are generated and provided to the client devices ([0047] & [0052]). The public key can be transmitted along with a digital certificate issued by a certificate authority ([0058]). Stuntebeck does not disclose that the devices transmit their public key in a manner that allows for the authentication of an IP address.
Shelest discloses devices transmitting messages to other devices that include their device public key and their PDK address ([0035]). The receiving device hashes the received public key and utilizes the generated hash to verify the sender’s address by comparing the hash to the address in the message ([0037]: PKD address is formatted as an IPv6 address [0032]. Therefore, the PDK address can be considered an IP address.), which meets the limitation of authenticating the destination network address of the destination device by exchanging a public key with the destination device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the device network addresses of Stuntebeck to have been determined using public key hashes in order to provide an low overhead authentication mechanism to verify a sender’s network address as suggested by Shelest ([0004] & [0006]).
Claims 18, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuntebeck, U.S. Publication No. 2015/0372994, in view of Simionescu, U.S. Publication No. 2006/0193265, in view of Lyon, U.S. Publication No. 2013/0103848, and further in view of Perdomo, U.S. Publication No. 2015/0264627. Referring to claims 18, 25, Stuntebeck does not disclose holding and updating a table associating a network address with connection to a device. Perdomo discloses each network node storing and updating routing tables ([0054]) that include network addresses ([0018]), which meets the limitation of holding and updating a table associating a network address with connection to a device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the network nodes of Stuntebeck to have included routing tables as described in Perdomo in order to facilitate use of a geographic routing protocol as discussed in Perdomo ([0025]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN E LANIER whose telephone number is (571)272-3805. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 6:20-4:50.
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at 5712705143. 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.
/BENJAMIN E LANIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437