DETAILED ACTION
In a communication received on 2 July 2025, the applicants amended claims 1-3, 8-13 and added claim 14.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to claim 1, the applicants allege, "Thorslund does not disclose definitively that the cleartext portion is always encrypted or is never encrypted. Rather, this second portion may be encrypted based on 'determin[ing] that a level of encryption for the network flow meets a predetermined threshold.' (Thorslund at 0029.) Claim 1 does not recite such a threshold, imposed by either the local entity, the infrastructure entity, or any other entity." (page 9) with respect to the claimed limitation(s), "produce locally protected data by locally pre-encrypting the protected portion of the exercise data according to at least one local encryption key associated with the local entity, the locally protected data comprising the shared portion and the locally pre-encrypted protected portion". The examiner respectfully traverses. The arguments/remarks pertain to whether the cited prior art does not disclose producing pre-encrypted portion of a message along with a shared portion. The examiner concludes that the cited prior art clearly discloses or suggests a message with an encrypted and unencrypted portion where the message can be further protected by encrypting the already encrypted and unencrypted portions
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue requires interpreting the claim language, and considering both the invention and the prior art references as a whole (See 2141.02 "Differences Between Prior art and Claimed Invention)
As best understood by the examiner, the claimed limitations do explicitly limit the encryption to being always encrypted or never encrypted. According to the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the claims merely require that the message includes an encrypted and an unencrypted portion, and further that the message with both portions may be further encrypted. Thorslund ¶0029 clearly discloses, "the encryption engine 216 may be configured to encrypt both the encrypted portions and the unencrypted portions (e.g., portions of the network packets containing or including clear text information). As such, the sender 202 may encrypt a portion of the network packet (e.g., using a protocol having a level of encryption which falls below the predetermined threshold), ... Hence, some portions of the network packet may be encrypted twice (e.g., a first layer of encryption and a second layer of encryption)." Therefore, Thorslund clearly discloses pre-encrypted a portion of the packet and the data to be protected includes the encrypted and the unencrypted portion of the message.
In conclusion, the applicants argue(s) that the cited prior art does not disclose producing pre-encrypted portion of a message along with a shared portion. The examiner traverses because the cited prior art clearly discloses or suggests a message with an encrypted and unencrypted portion where the message can be further protected by encrypting the already encrypted and unencrypted portions.
The applicants allege, "Thorslund does not disclose entity affiliations associated with said senders, receiver, or devices, such that some senders 202 would pre-encrypt data to protect it from intended receivers 204 (or from the sender-side network devices 206, which are able to access the unencrypted portions of data provided by the senders and identify both a protocol and a level of encryption associated with said data" (page 9) with respect to the claimed limitation(s), "wherein the local encryption key is accessible to a first subset of the group including the local entity and inaccessible to a second subset of the group". The examiner respectfully traverses. The arguments/remarks pertain to whether the cited prior art does not disclose or suggest pre-encrypting data intended for affiliated members of a coalition. The examiner concludes that the cited prior art clearly discloses distinct layers of encryption in which a first layer encryption key corresponds to the sender, and a second layer of encryption is added/removed without wholly decrypting the message at the intermediaries
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue requires interpreting the claim language, and considering both the invention and the prior art references as a whole (See 2141.02 "Differences Between Prior art and Claimed Invention)
As best understood by the examiner, the claimed subject matter pertains merely to protecting a portion of a message while in transit to recipient. Thorslund discloses, "The decryption engine 218 and encryption engine 216 may use or implement a common encryption scheme (for instance, a public
and private key scheme), which may be different from the encryption scheme implemented by the sender 202." (¶0052); and "...rather than wholly decrypting portions having two layers of encryption ( e.g., one by the sender 202 and another by the sender-side network device 206), the decryption engine 218 may be configured to decrypt one layer of the encryption such that the portion of the network packet has one layer of encryption ( e.g., by the sender 202)." (¶0053, fig. 2). Thorslund therefore suggests subsets of a group corresponding to different layers of encryption of the packet. The Decryption engine is configured to remove one layer of encryption corresponding to the encryption engine and therefore discloses that the encryption/decryption engines are a subset that do not access the encryption key used by the sending and receiving devices corresponding encoder/decoder.
In conclusion, the applicants argue(s) that the cited prior art does not disclose or suggest pre-encrypting data intended for affiliated members of a coalition. The examiner traverses because the cited prior art clearly discloses distinct layers of encryption in which a first layer encryption key corresponds to the sender, and a second layer of encryption is added/removed without wholly decrypting the message at the intermediaries.
With respect to claim 1 and 4, the applicants allege, "Rohloff's ‘intermediary pub-sub [publish-subscribe] instance’ re-encrypts for consumption by any and all consumers within a predetermined radius of the image data, regardless of the entity affiliation of those consumers" (page 16) with respect to the claimed limitation(s), "a local computing resource (LCR) associated with a first asset of a shared network of assets and affiliated with a local entity of a group of entities, wherein each asset of the shared network is affiliated with at least one entity of the group". The examiner respectfully traverses. The arguments/remarks pertain to whether the cited prior art teaches away from the combination that discloses or suggests sharing data securely with a subset within a group of members. The examiner concludes that the cited prior art clearly suggests a local encryption key distinct from the one used by the intermediary infrastructure for providing the message
If a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
As best understood by the examiner, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation(s) in light of the specification broadly covers affiliations associated with the entities and resources of the invention. The applicant's characterization of the art amounts to an oversimplification. The claims do not explicitly necessitate a determination of the parties’ allegiances, rather the alleged embodiment pointed out by applicant, is merely an exemplary illustration of an affiliation that could sent to coalition parties within a geographic location of the original sender, thus satisfying at least being a subset of the group of entities. Furthermore, in Rohloff, "a first party may encrypt a cleartext message into ciphertext which is reencrypted by the intermediary to be directly decrypted by the second party using the second party's secret key. During this process, the intermediary does not have access to the cleartext or the secret key" (¶0006). Furthermore, the "invention may be used in the defense domain to securely share sensitive information between coalition partners" (¶0009). Rohloff further discloses, "Producers of information (data sources) locally encrypt information with their personal key ... The intermediary pub-sub instance securely switches the key under which sensitive data is encrypted, without full decryption of the encrypted message and without allowing sensitive data to be accessed by unapproved data consumers ... this key-switching by the intermediary pub-sub instance 130 enables coalition partners in a military environment to securely receive only the data which they are intended to receive" (¶0044). Therefore, Rohloff is fit for the purposes of both Thorslund and even the claimed invention and would not discourage the combination with Thorslund.
In conclusion, the applicants argue(s) that the cited prior art teaches away from the combination that discloses or suggests sharing data securely with a subset within a group of members. The examiner traverses because the cited prior art clearly suggests a local encryption key distinct from the one used by the intermediary infrastructure for providing the message.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorslund et al. (US 2021/0021579 A1) in view of Rohloff et al. (US 2015/0271153 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Thorslund discloses: a system for controlling locally protected data flow through a shared network (i.e., network between sender and receiver in Thorslund, abstract, fig. 2, ¶0029),
the system comprising: a local computing resource (LCR), the LCR including one or more processors and associated with a local entity (i.e., sender-side network device in Thorslund, fig. 2, ¶0029),
the LCR configured to: generate exercise data configured for transmission through a shared network (i.e., senders transfer packets to sender-side network device; the data sources encrypting sensitive data collected in Thorslund, fig. 2, ¶0029, ¶0046),
the exercise data comprising a protected portion (i.e., encrypted portion in Thorslund, ¶0029) and a shared portion (i.e., clear text information in Thorslund, ¶0029),
the shared network further including a security infrastructure (i.e., sender-side device encrypts the clear text portion for transmission and decryption by receiver; an intermediary suggests a network operator in Thorslund, ¶0029); and
produce locally protected data by locally pre-encrypting the protected portion of the exercise data according to at least one local encryption key associated with the local entity, the locally protected data comprising the shared portion and the locally pre-encrypted protected portion (i.e., sender includes an encoder to encrypt a first portion of communication to be transmitted along with clear text information through the network in Thorslund, ¶0029, ¶0035);
at least one data guard configured for transferring the locally protected data to the security infrastructure (i.e., sender-side device configured to receive and encrypt the partially encrypted communication from the sender in Thorslund, ¶0029);
wherein the security infrastructure is configured to produce infrastructure protected data by encrypting the locally protected data according to at least one infrastructure encryption key associated with the infrastructure entity (i.e., based on a threshold, encryption engine encrypts the packets including previously encrypted and non-encrypted using various protocols; level of encryption determined by the threshold in Thorslund, ¶0044, ¶0048); and
a secure datalink communicatively coupled to the security infrastructure, the secure datalink configured for transmission of the infrastructure protected data to the plurality of assets via the security infrastructure (i.e., device forwards packets with both portions encrypted via a tunnel to a second device for decryption and forwarding in Thorslund, ¶0028).
Thorslund discloses forwarding the encrypted communication via receiver-side intermediary to a plurality of receivers, the entities associated in a software defined network (¶0031, ¶0066). Thorslund do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Rohloff, in order to ensure intended recipients are the only ones that can decrypt messages in a trustless multinational network environment (¶0041), discloses:
associated with a first asset of a shared network of assets and affiliated with a local entity of a group of entities (i.e., a subset of coalition partners approved to receive sensitive data in Rohloff, ¶0042), wherein each asset of the shared network is affiliated with at least one entity of the group (i.e., a multinational coalition; an intentional subset of partners may receive targeted data in Rohloff, ¶0044)
[security infrastructure] controlled by an infrastructure entity of the group (i.e., even if the pub-sub instance were compromised the host would not be able to decrypt the data and could only send the sensitive data to approved coalition partners in Rohloff, ¶0042)
wherein the local encryption key is accessible to a first subset of the group including the local entity (i.e., "A first layer of encoding and decoding may be performed by the sender 202 and receiver 204, and a second layer of encoding and decoding may be performed by the sender-side network device 206 and the receiver-side network device 208 ... may ensure the data transmitted or exchanged between senders and receivers 202, 204 is sufficiently protected through multiple layers of encoding/encryption" in Rohloff, ¶0054)
and inaccessible to a second subset of the group ("rather than wholly decrypting portions having two layers of encryption (e.g., one by the sender 202 and another by the sender-side network device 206), the decryption engine 218 may be configured to decrypt one layer of the encryption such that the portion of the network packet has one layer of encryption ( e.g., by the sender 202)."; the decryption engine is configured to remove only the outer layer of encryption and not the inner locally encrypted portion in Rohloff, ¶0053)
Thorslund discloses decryption occurs on the corresponding portion of the network packet, thus the encryption by the sender and key remain intact (¶0053). Thorslund do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Rohloff, in order to ensure intended recipients are the only ones that can decrypt messages in a trustless multinational network environment (¶0041), discloses:
wherein the at least one infrastructure encryption key is accessible to each entity of the group of entities (i.e., consumers are registered and re-encryption keys are generated per-source-consumer pair therefore each entity has access to at least one encryption key of the infrastructure distinct from the personal key of the data sources in Rohloff, ¶0032)
and the at least one local encryption key is not accessible to the infrastructure entity (i.e., data sources locally encrypt information with a personal key distinct from the key used by the pub-sub instance to reencrypt the communication in Rohloff, ¶0044).
Based on Thorslund in view of Rohloff, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Rohloff to improve upon those of Thorslund in order to ensure intended recipients are the only ones that can decrypt messages in a trustless multinational network environment.
With respect to claim 2, Thorslund discloses: the system of claim 1, wherein the LCR is a first LCR, and wherein: the plurality of assets includes at least one destination asset affiliated with the local entity, the destination asset including at least one second LCR configured for decryption of the locally protected data according to the at least one local encryption key (i.e., receiving the packets at a decryption engine configured to decrypt encryption by both the sender and the sender-side network device in Thorslund, ¶0053).
With respect to claim 3, Thorslund discloses: the system of claim 1, wherein the destination asset includes at least one mission operations console (MOC) affiliated with a first entity of the first subset of entities, each MOC configured for decryption of the locally protected data according to the at least one local encryption key (i.e., the decryption engine receives the packet and can be configured to only decrypt the sender-side encrypted portion of the communication leaving one layer of the sender’s encryption for the protected portion at the recipient endpoint in Thorslund, ¶0053).
With respect to claim 4, Thorslund discloses forwarding the encrypted communication via receiver-side intermediary to a plurality of receivers, the entities associated in a software defined network (¶0031, ¶0066). Thorslund do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Rohloff, in order to ensure intended recipients are the only ones that can decrypt messages in a trustless multinational network environment (¶0041), discloses: the system of claim 1,
wherein the LCR is embodied aboard a vehicle associated with the local entity (i.e., an aerial vehicle corresponding to encrypted communications in a trustless environment in Rohloff, ¶0041, ¶0046).
Based on Thorslund in view of Rohloff, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Rohloff to improve upon those of Thorslund in order to ensure intended recipients are the only ones that can decrypt messages in a trustless multinational network environment.
With respect to claim 5, Thorslund discloses forwarding the encrypted communication via receiver-side intermediary to a plurality of receivers, the entities associated in a software defined network (¶0031, ¶0066). Thorslund do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Rohloff, in order to ensure intended recipients are the only ones that can decrypt messages in a trustless multinational network environment (¶0041), discloses: the system of claim 1, wherein the LCR is embodied aboard an uncrewed vehicle (i.e., Unmanned aerial vehicle corresponding to encrypted communications in a trustless environment in Rohloff, ¶0041, ¶0046).
Based on Thorslund in view of Rohloff, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Rohloff to improve upon those of Thorslund in order to ensure intended recipients are the only ones that can decrypt messages in a trustless multinational network environment.
With respect to claim 6, Thorslund discloses: the system of claim 1, wherein the LCR is embodied aboard a manpack associated with the local entity (i.e., a wireless mobile computer with communication interfaces with wireless or cellular connections in Thorslund, ¶0023).
With respect to claim 7, Thorslund discloses forwarding the encrypted communication via receiver-side intermediary to a plurality of receivers, the entities associated in a software defined network (¶0031, ¶0066). Thorslund do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Rohloff, in order to ensure intended recipients are the only ones that can decrypt messages in a trustless multinational network environment (¶0041), discloses: the system of claim 1, wherein each of the local entity and the infrastructure entity comprises either a nation or a multinational organization (i.e., multi-national or coalition operation utilizing not fully trusted network environment; ensuring only intended data consumers can access the encrypted data in Rohloff, ¶0041).
Based on Thorslund in view of Rohloff, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Rohloff to improve upon those of Thorslund in order to ensure intended recipients are the only ones that can decrypt messages in a trustless multinational network environment.
With respect to claim 8, the limitation(s) of claim 8 are similar to those of claim(s) 1. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 1.
With respect to claim 9, the limitation(s) of claim 9 are similar to those of claim(s) 1. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 1.
With respect to claim 10, the limitation(s) of claim 10 are similar to those of claim(s) 4. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 4.
With respect to claim 11, the limitation(s) of claim 11 are similar to those of claim(s) 5. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 5.
With respect to claim 12, the limitation(s) of claim 12 are similar to those of claim(s) 6. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 6.
With respect to claim 13, the limitation(s) of claim 13 are similar to those of claim(s) 7. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 7.
With respect to claim 14, Thorslund discloses: the system of Claim 1, further comprising: at least one cross-domain solution (CDS) device, wherein the at least one CDS device includes:
the at least one data guard (i.e., sender-side network device in Thorslund, fig. 2, ¶0029); and
the security infrastructure configured for producing the infrastructure protected data by encrypting the locally protected data (i.e., the sender-side device encrypts the data already encrypted by the sender with its own distinct key; "network packets may undergo two layers of encoding and decoding. A first layer of encoding and decoding may be performed by the sender 202 and receiver 204, and a second layer of encoding and decoding may be performed by the sender-side network device 206 and the receiver-side network device 208. Such implementations and embodiments may ensure the data transmitted or exchanged between senders and receivers 202, 204 is sufficiently protected through multiple layers of encoding/encryption." in Thorslund, ¶0054)
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 SHERMAN L LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Joon Hwang can be reached on 571-272-4036. 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.
Sherman Lin
10/30/2025
/S. L./Examiner, Art Unit 2447
/JOON H HWANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2447