DETAILED ACTION
A response was received on 25 February 2026. By this response, Claims 2, 7, 10, and 20 have been amended. No claims have been added or canceled. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 2, 3, and 7-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite, and with particular reference to Claim 7, Applicant argues that since the term “mediation device” does not appear before security certificate or private key in Claim 7 then it is clear that this does not refer to the mediation device private key and certificate recited in Claim 1 (page 10 of the present response). However, despite this lack of “mediation device”, it remains unclear whether these may refer to the same key and certificate or if they must be distinct. For example, the POI could still use the certificate of the mediation device to verify the mediation device. It is recommended that the certificate and private key in Claim 7 be provided with an additional label or descriptor to make clear the distinction from the mediation device certificate and private key recited in Claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being over Somma et al, US Patent Application Publication 2022/0263873, in view of Moore et al, US Patent 10924456, and Mauro, II et al, US Patent 8312262, and with particular reference to independent Claim 1, Applicant argues that the certificate authority of Somma is included as part of the MLTL whereas Mauro discloses a management system that is asserted to be distinct from a mediation device (pages 12-13 of the present response, citing Somma, paragraph 0126). However, Somma discloses that the certificate authority in the MLTL cooperates with the administration function (AF 210, also in the MLTL, where the administration function is a management system). Therefore the combined teachings of a management system that includes a CA in Somma (paragraphs 0132-0136) and a management system that can either be integrated with or separate from a CA as in Mauro (column 12, lines 7-19) at least suggest that the management function of the mediation functions of Somma could be separated from the certificate authority in order to provide easier maintenance of the mediation device and allow the use of external commercial entities as the certificate authority (see Mauro, column 12, lines 7-19, as previously cited). Although Applicant further argues that Somma discloses the CA as part of the MLTL which is alleged to be the mediation device (pages 14-15 of the present response, citing Somma, paragraph 0137, which appears to actually constitute paragraphs 0137-0144), it is noted that the MLTL was not itself mapped to the claimed mediation function; rather, the mediation functions 118/218 were mapped to the claimed mediation function. Although Applicant asserts that there is no reason or suggestion to move the certificate authority (page 15 of the present response), it is noted that the outstanding rejection explicitly provided a motivation to make the certificate authority separate, as also detailed above.
Therefore, for the reasons detailed above, the Examiner maintains the rejections as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 7, line 6, the comma before “to request” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claims 2, 3, and 10-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims. The rejection of Claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is NOT withdrawn for the reasons detailed above, and because not all issues have been addressed, as detailed below.
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 7-9 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.
Claim 7 recites “a security certificate and a private key” in lines 6-7. It is not clear whether these are intended to refer to the certificate and private key recited in Claim 1 or distinct certificates and keys. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somma et al, US Patent Application Publication 2022/0263873, in view of Moore et al, US Patent 10924456, and Mauro, II et al, US Patent 8312262.
In reference to Claim 1, Somma discloses a method of supporting lawful intercept that uses a mediation function connected to a point of interception using a secure connection (see paragraph 0008; see also Figure 3A, vPOI 140, mediation functions 118/218, and paragraphs 0132-0136; see further paragraphs 0064-0067 and 0092-0094, SSL connection), where certificates for the secure connection are issued by a certificate authority for all lawful interception functions and components (paragraphs 0076-0077) and traffic is intercepted by the point of interception (see paragraph 0060). However, Somma does not explicitly disclose using a private key to establish the secure connection between the mediation device and point of interception.
Moore discloses a method of supporting lawful intercept that includes receiving a private key and certificate from a certificate authority, where the certificate includes a signature and public key (see column 5, line 57-column 6, line 12, CA, X.509 certificates, which include signature and public key; see also column 9, line 45-column 10, line 6); establishing a secure connection using the private key where the connection is encrypted and authenticated (see column 6, line 28-column 7, line 4, private key; see also column 9, line 45-column 10, line 6, TLS); and receiving traffic intercepted by a point of interception (see column 10, lines 7-22, lawful interception). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Somma by including the private key and TLS connection of Moore, in order to protect networks from threats and assist law enforcement (see Moore, column 3, lines 5-35).
However, neither Somma nor Moore explicitly discloses the certificate authority being located outside and separate from the mediation device. Mauro discloses that a management system and certificate authority may be implemented as one integrated entity or as two separate entities, and that there are advantages to them being two separate entities (see column 12, lines 7-19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Somma and Moore to have the certificate authority separate from the mediation device, in order to provide easier maintenance of the mediation device and allow the use of external commercial entities as the certificate authority (see Mauro, column 12, lines 7-19).
In reference to Claims 2 and 3, Somma, Moore, and Mauro further disclose authenticating and requesting a security certificate and token (see Somma, paragraph 0126; see also Moore, column 5, line 57-column 6, line 12).
In reference to Claims 4 and 5, Somma, Moore, and Mauro further disclose requesting the certificate and sending information for the certificate request (Somma, paragraphs 0076-0077; Moore, column 5, line 57-column 6, line 12).
In reference to Claim 6, Somma, Moore, and Mauro further disclose a communications intercept request (see Somma, paragraph 0060, and Moore, column 10, lines 7-22).
In reference to Claims 7-9, Somma, Moore, and Mauro further disclose requesting and receiving a certificate and key and establishing the secure connection (Somma, paragraphs 0064-0067 and 0092-0094; Moore, column 6, line 28-column 7, line 4, and column 9, line 45-column 10, line 6).
Claims 10-19 are directed to systems having functionality corresponding to the methods of Claims 1-9, and are rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 20 is directed to a software implementation of the method of Claim 1, and is rejected by a similar rationale.
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 Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights