DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to amendments and remarks filed by Applicant on 12/3/2025.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement PTO-1449
The Information Disclosure Statement submitted by applicant on 12/3/2025 has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Form PTO-1449 signed and attached hereto.
Response to Amendment
Applicant presents amendments to independent claims 1–2, 4–9. 16, and 19. All amendments have been fully considered.
Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously cited combination of references serving as the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. A new search was conducted as well as a review of previously cited prior art already in the record. As a result, a new combination of references is presented below.
Regarding independent claim 16, Applicants amendments, no new art was required. The amendments are addressed with respect to the previously cited references. Additional analysis with respect to the amended language is provided in the arguments section below.
Examiner notes that while the amendments bring independent claims 1 and 16 closer to the scope of the indicated allowable subject matter of claim 11, claims 1 and 16 remain broader than claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents arguments with respect to claims 1–20. All arguments have been fully considered.
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner agrees that the previous combination of prior art does not disclose the elements of the new scope of the claimed invention. As mentioned above, new rejections are presented below.
Regarding independent claim 16, Applicant argues that the primary reference, Checco, fails to disclose the amended subject matter. The Examiner responds: the breadth of Applicant’s claim language allows for the application of the concepts taught by Checco to be applied to the claims. As mapped below, Checco discloses that the various communications channels through which the shards of data are transmitted can be through separate and independent networks. See Checco at ¶ 54. While the reference specifically described different cellular networks, other enterprise networks are also named.
Applicant argues that the limitation “selected for data security during communication of the data” is not found in the combination of references. However, the disclosed process of Checco where the data is sharded and communicated across multiple channels inherently performed for data security purposes. The selection of channels in excess of a single channel amounts to selecting channels “for data security during communication of the data”.
Applicant argues that the previously cited references fail to disclose the amended language of, “point to point security service between network endpoints to increase the data security during the communication of the data shards”. The Examiner asserts that “point to point security service between network endpoints” is well known, particularly in the practical application of a VPN, which is cited in the secondary Parsa reference. However, the Examiner asserts that clarifying language such as “to increase the data security during the communication of the data shards” is interpreted as intended use and carries no patentable weight.
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.
Claims 1–2, 4, 7, 9–10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot (US 7,242,776 B1, issued Jul. 10, 2007) in view of Bestler (US 2016/0191509 A1, published Jun. 30, 2016) in view of Checco (US 2021/0243256 A1, published Aug. 5, 2021).
Regarding claim 1, a device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: receiving, at a first network endpoint, one or more units of data for transmission to a destination at a second network endpoint (a remote user 114 initiates a request for data and the data is supplied to the system 100 over input connection 103 to the input interface 104 of system 100. Elliot Figure 1, 4:62–64, and 8:15–34.); splitting the one or more units of data into a plurality of data shards (prior to transmission of the data across the network 112, network protocols partition the data into packets of fixed or variable length. Elliot 8:28–29.); and communicating the plurality of data shards from the first network endpoint to the destination at the second network endpoint (a specified number of data bits are sent over network 112 to remote user 114. Elliot 8:24–27.).
Elliot does not disclose: the splitting is according to a key to define partitioning of the one or more units of data into the plurality of data shards; selecting a plurality of diverse physical paths for communication of information between the first network endpoint and the destination at the second network endpoint for data security during the communication of information; the communicating comprises providing a respective data shard of the plurality of data shards to a respective physical path of a plurality of diverse physical paths, forming a terminated security service between the first network endpoint and the second network endpoint to increase data security during the communicating.
However, Bestler does disclose: wherein the splitting is according to a key to define partitioning of the one or more units of data into the plurality of data shards (partitioning payload objects into shards using a key sharding technique where a key hash identifying token based upon the partition key is used to partition the records into shards. Bestler ¶¶ 948 and 955.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the partitioning received data for transmission across a specific secured network path of Elliot with using a key to partition the data into a plurality of shards based upon the teaching of Bestler. The motivation being that key sharding makes the probably distribution of future records very even and allows for an optimum division of the object into shards. Bestler ¶ 951.
Elliot in view of Bestler does not disclose: selecting a plurality of diverse physical paths for communication of information between the first network endpoint and the destination at the second network endpoint for data security during the communication of information; the communicating comprises providing a respective data shard of the plurality of data shards to a respective physical path of a plurality of diverse physical paths, forming a terminated security service between the first network endpoint and the second network endpoint to increase data security during the communicating.
However, Checco does disclose: selecting a plurality of diverse physical paths for communication of information between the first network endpoint and the destination at the second network endpoint for data security during the communication of information (the channel identification engine 112c identifies appropriate network channels to send the sharded data. Checco ¶¶ 23 and 34.); the communicating comprises providing a respective data shard of the plurality of data shards to a respective physical path of a plurality of diverse physical paths, forming a terminated security service between the first network endpoint and the second network endpoint to increase data security during the communicating (data sharding computing platform sends to the second computing device the first share via the first communication channel, the second shard via the second communications channel and the Nth shard through the Nth communications channel. Checco ¶ 48. The Shard merging engine 112d cause received shards at the endpoint terminal to merge and reconfigure the data. Checco ¶ 34.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the partitioning received data for transmission across a specific secured network path of Elliot with selecting diverse channels over which to transmit the shards based upon the teachings of Checco. The motivation being to diversify the communication means to obscure the data portions in transit to reduce risk of interception by an adversary.
Regarding claim 2, Elliot in view of Bestler in view of Checco discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: encrypting at least some data shards of the plurality of data shards, forming encrypted data shards; and communicating the encrypted data shards over at least one physical path of the plurality of physical paths (transmitting data partitions using a VPN. Elliot 8:15–34.).
Regarding claim 4, Elliot in view of Bestler in view of Checco discloses the limitations of claim 2, wherein the operations further comprise: selecting a single data shard of the plurality of data shards for encryption (the data sharding computer platform is responsible for sharding data packets and selectively separates confidential data from non-confidential data an applies encryption techniques to the confidential data. Checco ¶ 52.), forming an encrypted data shard; and communicating the encrypted data shard and other data shards of the plurality of data shards over respective physical paths of the plurality of diverse physical paths (data shards are sent via different channels, such as a private 5G channel and a public 5G channel further reducing the risk of unauthorized access. Checco ¶¶ 55–56.).
Regarding claim 7, Elliot in view of Bestler in view of Checco discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: selecting a unique optical fiber of an optical network; and assigning the unique optical fiber as a respective physical path of the plurality of physical paths (Elliot 7:34–39.).
Regarding claim 9, Elliot in view of Bestler in view of Checco discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: selecting a unique radio resource of a radio communication system; and assigning the unique radio resource as a respective physical path of the plurality of diverse physical paths (determining appropriate shards for particular radio frequencies. Checco ¶ 47.).
Regarding claim 10, Elliot in view of Bestler in view of Checco discloses the limitations of claim 9, wherein the selecting a unique radio resource comprises: selecting a unique radio frequency of the radio communication system as the unique radio resource (determining appropriate shards for particular radio frequencies. Checco ¶ 47.).
Claims 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot in view of Bestler in view of Checco in view of Mudulodu (US 2019/0306135 A1, published Oct. 3, 2019).
Regarding claim 3, Elliot in view of Bestler in view of Checco discloses the limitations of claim 2, wherein the encrypting at least some data shards comprises selecting a subset of data shards of the plurality of data shards, forming shard data for encryption (the data sharding computer platform is responsible for sharding data packets and separates confidential data from non-confidential data an applies encryption techniques to the confidential data. Checco ¶ 52.).
Elliot in view of Bestler in view of Checco does not disclose: applying a multi-path digital encryption algorithm to the shard data for encryption.
However, Mudulodu does disclose: applying a multi-path digital encryption algorithm to the shard data for encryption (a message for transmission is split into a plurality of message units, which are encrypted into encrypted units and transmitted across a plurality of paths. Mudulodu ¶ 8.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the partitioning received data for transmission across a specific secured network path of Elliot with applying encryption to shard data for encryption based upon the teachings of Mudulodu. The motivation being to ensure secure end-to-end communication that is not prone to man-in-the-middle decryption attempts. Mudulodu ¶ 3.
Claims 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot in view of Bestler in view of Checco in view of Atkinson (US 2017/0353232 A1, published Dec. 7, 2017).
Regarding claim 5, Elliot in view of Bestler in view of Checco discloses the limitations of claim 1. Elliot in view of Bestler in view of Checco does not disclose: wherein the operations further comprise: applying an error correction algorithm to respective data shards of the plurality of data shards, forming error corrected data shards; and communicating the error corrected data shards to the destination on respective physical paths of the plurality of diverse physical paths.
However, Atkinson does disclose: wherein the operations further comprise: applying an error correction algorithm to respective data shards of the plurality of data shards, forming error corrected data shards (correction information is added to the transmitted data so that even if a portion is not communicated properly, the original message can be recovered by the recipient using error correction decoding without needing to request retransmission. Atkinson ¶ 31.); and communicating the error corrected data shards to the destination on respective physical paths of the plurality of diverse physical paths (transmitting message portions incorporated with error correction across multiple commercial-quality channels. Atkinson ¶ 3.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the partitioning received data for transmission across a specific secured network path of Elliot with applying error correction to data shards and communicating the shards to a destination on a physical network path based upon the teachings of Atkinson. The motivation being to ensure successful transmission without needing to request retransmission. Atkinson ¶ 31.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot in view of Bestler in view of Checco in view of Gleichauf (US 2003/0149869 A1, published Aug. 7, 2003).
Regarding claim 6, Elliot in view of Bestler in view of Checco discloses the limitations of claim 1. Elliot in view of Bestler in view of Checco does not disclose: wherein the operations further comprise: applying a respective unique label to each respective data shard of the plurality of data shards, wherein each respective unique label corresponds to a unique respective physical path of the plurality of diverse physical paths; and providing each respective data shard to each physical data path according to each respective unique label.
However, Gleichauf does disclose: wherein the operations further comprise: applying a respective unique label to each respective data shard of the plurality of data shards, wherein each respective unique label corresponds to a unique respective physical path of the plurality of diverse physical paths; and providing each respective data shard to each physical data path according to each respective unique label (packet labels regarding identity and path. Gleichauf ¶ 63–64.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the partitioning received data for transmission across a specific secured network path of Elliot with applying labels related to transmission paths of the data fragments based upon the teachings of Gleichauf. The motivation being to allow routing architecture to make decisions on how to best route the data. Gleichauf ¶ 63.
Claims 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot in view of Bestler in view of Checco in view of Williams (US 2021/0160286 A1, published May 27, 2021).
Regarding claim 8, Elliot in view of Bestler in view of Checco discloses the limitations of claim 1. Elliot in view of Bestler in view of Checco does not disclose: wherein the operations further comprise: selecting a unique wavelength of a wavelength-division multiplexing communication system; and assigning the unique wavelength as a respective physical path of the plurality of diverse physical paths.
However, Williams does disclose: wherein the operations further comprise: selecting a unique wavelength of a wavelength-division multiplexing communication system; and assigning the unique wavelength as a respective physical path of the plurality of physical paths (assigning different data segments to different selected wavelengths. Williams ¶¶ 25 and 30.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the partitioning received data for transmission across a specific secured network path of Elliot with selecting wavelength in a multiplexing system for each path based upon the teachings of Williams. The motivation being to use various standard communication architectures to facilitate the transmission of network data. Williams ¶ 25.
Claims 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Checco in view of Elliot in view of Parsa (US 2021/0157641 A1, published May. 27, 2021).
Regarding claim 16, Checco discloses: a method, comprising: receiving, by a processing system including a processor, at a destination network device including the processing system, data shards from a diverse plurality of physical links, the diverse plurality of links selected for data security during communication of the data shards, the data shards received over the diverse plurality of physical links by a source network device (in cooperation with the source device, the recipient device receives the requested data such that the data is broken into shards and the source sharding platform sends the first shard via a first channel and a second shard via a second channel to the recipient computing device. Checco ¶¶ 36 and 48. The channel identification engine 112c identifies appropriate network channels to send the sharded data. Checco ¶¶ 23 and 34. Data sharding computing platform sends to the second computing device the first share via the first communication channel, the second shard via the second communications channel and the Nth shard through the Nth communications channel and applies encryption techniques to encrypt the confidential data. Checco ¶¶ 48 and 52. The Shard merging engine 112d cause received shards at the endpoint terminal to merge and reconfigure the data. Checco ¶ 34. Channels are established in diverse networks. Checco ¶ 54.); reassembling, by the processing system, the data shards into a block of data, the block of data matching a source block of data at the source network device (the shard merging engine merges the first shard and the second shard to reconfigure the data. Checco ¶ 34.); and communicating, by the processing system, the block of data to a destination (reconfigured data is then provided to the destination computing device. Checco ¶ 57.).
Checco does not disclose: the source network device forming a first network endpoint and the destination network device forming a second network endpoint, the first network endpoint and the second network endpoint forming a terminated, point to point security service between network endpoints to increase the data security during the communication of the data shards; wherein the reassembling comprises ordering bits of the data shards using a key, the key matching a data splitting key used to partition the source block of data at the source network device; and communicating, by the processing system, the block of data from the destination network device to a data destination, the data destination in data communication with the destination network device.
However, Elliot does disclose: the source network device forming a first network endpoint and the destination network device forming a second network endpoint, the first network endpoint and the second network endpoint forming a terminated (a remote user 114 initiates a request for data and the data is supplied to the system 100 over input connection 103 to the input interface 104 of system 100. Elliot Figure 1, 4:62–64, and 8:15–34.), point to point security service between network endpoints to increase the data security during the communication of the data shards (the transmission of partitioned data packets is carried out over an Internet Protocol network including a Virtual Private Network (VPN) from endpoint 100 to endpoint 114. Elliot 8:15–34. It is understood that a VPN is a terminated security service that dictates a specific cryptographically secured physical path among distinguished from any other network path in an IP network. Examiner notes that the recited “to increase the data security during the communication of the data shards” is considered intended use and carries no patentable weight.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intercepting network data transmissions to shard the data and disperse the shards across a plurality of network paths in Checco with the source being the first endpoint and the destination being the second endpoint and employing point to point security service based upon the teachings of Elliot. The motivation being to increase communications security.
Checco in view of Elliot does not disclose: wherein the reassembling comprises ordering bits of the data shards using a key, the key matching a data splitting key used to partition the source block of data at the source network device; and communicating, by the processing system, the block of data from the destination network device to a data destination, the data destination in data communication with the destination network device
However, Parsa does disclose: wherein the reassembling comprises ordering bits of the data shards using a key, the key matching a data splitting key used to partition the source block of data at the source network device (retrieval by a client of remotely stored sharded data begins with determining the location of the stored shard and requires the shard key to fetch the appropriate data elements for recombination. Parsa ¶ 34. The order of shard fragments in terms of horizontal partition is based upon the shard key and is required for retrieval of the original data. Parsa ¶ 38.); and communicating, by the processing system, the block of data from the destination network device to a data destination, the data destination in data communication with the destination network device (retrieval of data from the host storage to the client. Parsa ¶¶ 34–35.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intercepting network data transmissions to shard the data and disperse the shards across a plurality of network paths in Checco with using the shard key to retrieve, reassemble, and order the remotely stored data shards back to the block data based upon the teachings of Parsa. The motivation being that sharding allows for reassembly of portioned data that are stored across multiple remote storage devices. Parsa ¶ 2.
Claims 17–18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Checco in view of Elliot in view of Parsa in view of Mudulodu.
Regarding claim 17, Checco in view of Elliot in view of Parsa discloses the limitations of claim 16. Checco in view of Elliot in view of Parsa does not disclose: comprising: decrypting, by the processing system, at least some data shards prior to the reassembling the data shards into the block of data.
However, Mudulodu does disclose: comprising: decrypting, by the processing system, at least some data shards prior to the reassembling the data shards into the block of data (receiving the plurality of encrypted message units, decrypting the message units and concatenating the plurality of message units into a message. Mudulodu ¶¶ 8–9.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intercepting network data transmissions to shard the data and disperse the shards across a plurality of network paths in Checco with decrypting data segments prior to reassembly based upon the teachings of Mudulodu. The motivation being to facilitate delivery and ensure secure end-to-end communication that is not prone to man-in-the-middle decryption attempts. Mudulodu ¶ 3.
Regarding claim 18, Checco in view of Elliot in view of Parsa discloses the limitations of claim 16. Checco in view of Elliot in view of Parsa does not disclose: wherein the reassembling the data shards into the block of data comprises: identifying, by the processing system, a plurality of frames, the plurality of frames corresponding to frames of the source block of data at the source network device; and organizing, by the processing system, data of the block of data into frames of the plurality of frames.
However, Mudulodu does disclose: wherein the reassembling the data shards into the block of data comprises: identifying, by the processing system, a plurality of frames, the plurality of frames corresponding to frames of the source block of data at the source network device; and organizing, by the processing system, data of the block of data into frames of the plurality of frames (sequence numbers are used for particular path units and are known by the recipient device such that the reassembly of the path units are put back into the encryption units at the destination. Mudulodu ¶ 21.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intercepting network data transmissions to shard the data and disperse the shards across a plurality of network paths in Checco with organizing the segmentation of the transmission data based upon the teachings of the Mudulodu. The motivation being to facilitate delivery and ensure secure end-to-end communication that is not prone to man-in-the-middle decryption attempts. Mudulodu ¶ 3.
Claims 19–20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Checco in view of Elliot in view of Parsa in view of Williams.
Regarding claim 19, Checco in view of Elliot in view of Parsa discloses the limitations of claim 16, wherein the optical network provides data communication between the source network device and the destination network device (Checco ¶ 62.).
Checco in view of Elliot in view of Parsa does not disclose: wherein the receiving the data shards from a diverse plurality of physical links comprises: demodulating, by the processing system, a plurality of wavelengths of an optical network (assigning different data segments to different selected wavelengths. Williams ¶¶ 25 and 30.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intercepting network data transmissions to shard the data and disperse the shards across a plurality of network paths in Checco with assigning different data fragments to different selected wavelength paths based upon the teachings of Williams. The motivation being to use various standard communication architectures to facilitate the transmission of network data. Williams ¶ 25.
Regarding claim 20, Checco in view of Elliot in view of Parsa in view of Williams discloses the limitations of claim 19, wherein the demodulating the plurality of wavelengths comprises: receiving, by the processing system, optical signals on a plurality of optical fibers of the optical network, the optical signals conveying the data shards from the source network device (Checco ¶ 62.).
Checco in view of Elliot in view of Parsa does not disclose: demodulating, by the processing system, one or more wavelengths of the plurality of wavelengths on each optical fiber of a plurality of optical fibers of the optical network (assigning different data segments to different selected wavelengths. Williams ¶¶ 25 and 30.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intercepting network data transmissions to shard the data and disperse the shards across a plurality of network paths in Checco with demodulating wavelengths of an optical fiber network based upon the teachings of Williams. The motivation being to use various standard communication architectures to facilitate the transmission of network data. Williams ¶ 25.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11–15 allowed.
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 VANCE LITTLE whose telephone number is (571) 270-0408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Jung (Jay) Kim can be reached at (571) 272-3804. 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.
/VANCE M LITTLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494