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
This action is responsive to amendment filed January 9, 2026.
Status of Claims
No claims were amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6 of remarks, Applicant argues that the applied references do not teach the claimed storing keys in a deterministic order, and that storing in a deterministic manner is different from storing in a deterministic order.
In reply, Applicant is reminded that the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. The references are applied to these broad limitations in a reasonable manner. Applicant has failed to provide adequate examples and explanations which would clearly demonstrate the definition of each claim limitation, and Applicant has not amended the claims to make limitations reflect certain embodiments as outlined in Applicants specification (and which may then preclude a broad interpretation in light of the references). Furthermore, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims unless the specification provides explicit and non-broad definitions of said limitations. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Taking for example, the limitation of: "deterministic order". The Pierce reference satisfies this limitation because Pierce teaches managing cryptographic keys (see Pierce, at least Abstract), and specifically teaches generating and storing a set of two or more keys in a deterministic manner (see Pierce, at least column 4 line 53 – column 5 line 20). In this case, “deterministic order” is seen to broadly mean storing in an orderly manner or in a non-random way (which is demonstrated by Pierce). Pierce does this for the purpose of managing multiple keys in a manner that ensures an adequate level of security over time.
Applicant has failed to properly explain how and why the claims are different than storing in an orderly manner or in a non-random way. Applicants specification fails to give clearcut and non-broad definitions of the above limitation. And the claims fail to give proper context and detail which would prevent broad interpretations and/or obviate the Pierce reference. This broad interpretation applies to the rest of the claim limitations and to the rest of the applied references.
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 1-7,9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US Publication 20180084413) in view of Pierce (US Patent 6868407) in further view of Shmatz et al (US Publication 20210126781).
In reference to claim 1, Lee teaches a method comprising:
generating a plurality of keys for link encryption; (see at least ¶s 58,61,76, which teaches establishing/generating a key for an initial network connection, and then generate other keys part of a refresh provisioning procedure)
storing the keys in an order; (see at least ¶s 71,78, which teaches storing the keys)
detecting that a re-key programmable threshold is met during link encryption with a device; (see at least ¶s 61,64, which teaches detecting a key refresh trigger during the connection)
identifying a synchronization point associated with the device, where the synchronization point indicates the device is ready to switch a current key used for link encryption; (see at least ¶ 61 lines 8-18 & ¶s 77-78, which teaches identifying a time period when the device is ready to switch or refresh keys during a connection) and
synchronizing a rekeying event with the device (see at least ¶s 74-75, which teaches synchronizing key refresh event with the device).
Lee fails to explicitly teach generating a plurality of keys comprising a set of two or more keys, and storing the plurality of keys as the set in a deterministic order. However, Pierce teaches managing cryptographic keys (see Pierce, at least Abstract), and discloses generating and storing a set of two or more keys in a deterministic manner (see Pierce, at least column 4 line 53 – column 5 line 20). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee based on the teachings of Pierce for the purpose of managing multiple keys in a manner that ensures an adequate level of security over time.
Lee fails to explicitly teach key generated based on high entropy seed. However, Shmatz teaches cryptographic encryption and key management, and discloses generating seeds according to entropy-based random values in order to generate cryptographic objects/keys (see Shmatz, at least Abstract and ¶ 25). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee based on the teachings of Shmatz for the purpose of generating and distributing cryptographic keys for secure key management and network communication (see Shmatz, at least Background).
In reference to claim 2, this is taught by Lee, at least ¶ 61 lines 8-15, which teaches conditions for a key refreshing frequency.
In reference to claim 3, this is taught by Lee, at least ¶ 61, which teaches conditions based on an amount of time and other factors.
In reference to claim 4, this is taught by Lee, at least ¶ 109, which teaches a controller and other components for link communication.
In reference to claim 5, this is taught by Lee, at least ¶s 73-76, which teaches a trigger for periodically indicating a key refresh, and generating a next key for a re-authentication procedure.
In reference to claim 6, this is taught by Pierce, at least column 4 lines 53-67 and column 5 lines 14-55, which teaches the deterministic order facilitate key management for data protection. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Lee based on the teachings of Pierce in accordance to the rationale given for claim 1.
In reference to claim 7, this is taught by Pierce, at least column 5 lines 40-67, which teaches key management and generating new encryption keys. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Lee based on the teachings of Pierce in accordance to the rationale given for claim 1.
Claims 9-19 are slight variations of the rejected claims 1-7 above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 8,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US Publication 20180084413) in view of Pierce (US Patent 6868407) in further view of Shmatz et al (US Publication 20210126781) in further view of Hausauer et al (US Publication 20230403260).
In reference to claim 8, Lee teaches interconnecting and communicating via peripheral components (see Lee, at least ¶s 111,115). Lee fails to explicitly teach the link is PCIe and encryption is on the PCIe link. However, Hausauer teaches encryption processing for encrypted communication and discloses PCIe links for encrypted communication transfers (see Hausauer, at least Background and ¶ 38). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee based on the teachings of Hausauer for the purpose of facilitating encrypted communications via high speed hardware encryption process.
Claim 20 is slight variations of the rejected claim 8 above, and is therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. (See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification.
In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Form 892.
Contact & Status
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri, 9AM-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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/Ramy M Osman/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
January 30, 2026