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 .
Claim Objections
As to claim 1, line 21, the phrase “in network” should be “in-network” for consistency with the phrase introduced in line 20 of claim 1.
As to claim 1, line 23, the phrase “in network” should be “in-network” for consistency with the phrase introduced in line 20 of claim 1.
As to claim 1, line 24, the phrase “in network” should be “in-network” for consistency with the phrase introduced in line 20 of claim 1.
As to claim 3, line 3, the phrase “in network” should be “in-network” for consistency with the phrase introduced in line 20 of claim 1.
As to claim 4, line 2, the phrase “in network” should be “in-network” for consistency with the phrase introduced in line 20 of claim 1.
As to claim 10, line 21, the phrase “in network” should be “in-network” for consistency with the phrase introduced in line 20 of claim 10.
As to claim 10, line 23, the phrase “in network” should be “in-network” for consistency with the phrase introduced in line 20 of claim 10.
As to claim 10, line 24, the phrase “in network” should be “in-network” for consistency with the phrase introduced in line 20 of claim 10.
As to claim 14, line 4, the phrase “in network” should be “in-network” for consistency with the phrase introduced in line 20 of claim 10.
As to claim 15, line 3, the phrase “in network” should be “in-network” for consistency with the phrase introduced in line 20 of claim 10.
As to claim 16, line 20, the phrase “in network” should be “in-network” for consistency with the phrase introduced in line 19 of claim 16.
As to claim 16, line 22, the phrase “in network” should be “in-network” for consistency with the phrase introduced in line 19 of claim 16.
As to claim 16, line 23, the phrase “in network” should be “in-network” for consistency with the phrase introduced in line 19 of claim 16.
As to claim 18, line 3, the phrase “in network” should be “in-network” for consistency with the phrase introduced in line 19 of claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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.
As to claim 1, lines 8-9, the meaning of the phrase “the TLS encrypted data” is unclear to the examiner. The phrase could be referring back to either the “TLS encrypted data” of lines 5-6 of the claim or the “TLS encrypted data” of lines 7-8 of the claim.
As to claim 1, line 15, the meaning of the phrase “the TLS encrypted data” is unclear to the examiner. The phrase could be referring back to the “TLS encrypted data” of lines 5-6 of the claim, the “TLS encrypted data” of lines 7-8 of the claim, or the “TLS encrypted data” of line 14 of the claim.
As to claims 2-9, the claims are rejected due to their dependency on, and therefore inclusion of, the rejected subject matter of claim 1 discussed above.
As to claim 2, line 3, the meaning of the phrase “the received packets” is unclear to the examiner. The phrase could be referring back to the “packets received from the first network interface device” of line 6 of claim 1, the “packets received out of order from the first network interface device” of line 7 of claim 1, the “packets received from the second network interface device” of lines 11-12 of claim 1, or the “packets received from the first and second network interfaces” of lines 1-2 of claim 2.
As to claim 3, line 3, the meaning of the phrase “the reordered data” is unclear to the examiner. The phrase could be referring back to “reorder TLS encrypted data received from the first network interface” in lines 7-8 of claim 1 or it could be referring back to “reorder TLS encrypted data received from the second network interface device” of line 13 of claim 1.
As to claim 4, line 3, the meaning of the phrase “the reordered data” is unclear to the examiner. The phrase could be referring back to “reorder TLS encrypted data received from the first network interface” in lines 7-8 of claim 1 or it could be referring back to “reorder TLS encrypted data received from the second network interface device” of line 13 of claim 1.
As to claim 6, lines 2-3, the meaning of the phrase “wherein the first and second memory buffers are to store from the respective first and second network interface devices” is unclear to the examiner. The phrase appears to be grammatically incorrect and missing language. For example, the phrase may be intended to claim the first memory buffer storing data received from the first network interface device and the second memory buffer storing data received from the second network interface device.
As to claim 10, lines 8-9, the meaning of the phrase “the TLS encrypted data” is unclear to the examiner. The phrase could be referring back to either the “TLS encrypted data” of lines 5-6 of the claim or the “TLS encrypted data” of lines 7-8 of the claim.
As to claim 10, line 15, the meaning of the phrase “the TLS encrypted data” is unclear to the examiner. The phrase could be referring back to the “TLS encrypted data” of lines 5-6 of the claim, the “TLS encrypted data” of lines 7-8 of the claim, or the “TLS encrypted data” of line 14 of the claim.
As to claims 11-15, the claims are rejected due to their dependency on, and therefore inclusion of, the rejected subject matter of claim 10 discussed above.
As to claim 11, lines 5-6, the meaning of the phrase “the received packets” is unclear to the examiner. The phrase could be referring back to the “packets received from the first network interface device” of line 6 of claim 10, the “packets received out of order from the first network interface device” of line 7 of claim 10, the “packets received from the second network interface device” of lines 11-12 of claim 10, or the “packets received from the first and second network interfaces” of lines 4-5 of claim 11.
As to claim 12, lines 5-6, the meaning of the phrase “wherein the first and second memory buffers are to store from the respective first and second network interface devices” is unclear to the examiner. The phrase appears to be grammatically incorrect and missing language. For example, the phrase may be intended to claim the first memory buffer storing data received from the first network interface device and the second memory buffer storing data received from the second network interface device.
As to claim 14, line 4, the meaning of the phrase “the reordered data” is unclear to the examiner. The phrase could be referring back to “reorder TLS encrypted data received from the first network interface” in lines 7-8 of claim 10 or it could be referring back to “reorder TLS encrypted data received from the second network interface device” of line 13 of claim 10.
As to claim 15, line 3, the meaning of the phrase “the reordered data” is unclear to the examiner. The phrase could be referring back to “reorder TLS encrypted data received from the first network interface” in lines 7-8 of claim 10 or it could be referring back to “reorder TLS encrypted data received from the second network interface device” of line 13 of claim 10.
As to claim 16, lines 1-2, the meaning of the phrase “A method comprising: a network interface device performing:” is unclear to the examiner. A method is a logical process for doing something and not capable of comprising a physical element such as a network interface device.
As to claim 16, lines 7-8, the meaning of the phrase “the TLS encrypted data” is unclear to the examiner. The phrase could be referring back to either the “TLS encrypted data” of lines 4-5 of the claim or the “TLS encrypted data” of lines 6-7 of the claim.
As to claim 16, line 14, the meaning of the phrase “the TLS encrypted data” is unclear to the examiner. The phrase could be referring back to the “TLS encrypted data” of lines 4-5 of the claim, the “TLS encrypted data” of lines 6-7 of the claim, or the “TLS encrypted data” of line 13 of the claim.
As to claims 17-20, the claims are rejected due to their dependency on, and therefore inclusion of, the rejected subject matter of claim 16 discussed above.
As to claim 17, line 4, the meaning of the phrase “the received packets” is unclear to the examiner. The phrase could be referring back to the “packets received from the first network interface device” of line 5 of claim 16, the “packets received out of order from the first network interface device” of line 6 of claim 16, the “packets received from the second network interface device” of lines 10-11 of claim 16, or the “packets received from the first and second network interfaces” of lines 3-4 of claim 17.
As to claim 18, lines 3-4, the meaning of the phrase “the reordered data” is unclear to the examiner. The phrase could be referring back to “reorder TLS encrypted data received from the first network interface” in lines 6-7 of claim 16 or it could be referring back to “reorder TLS encrypted data received from the second network interface device” of lines 12-13 of claim 16.
As to claim 19, lines 4-5, the meaning of the phrase “wherein the first and second memory buffers are to store from the respective first and second network interface devices” is unclear to the examiner. The phrase appears to be grammatically incorrect and missing language. For example, the phrase may be intended to claim the first memory buffer storing data received from the first network interface device and the second memory buffer storing data received from the second network interface device.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest the invention as claimed. This is not a statement that any one limitation in a vacuum is allowable subject matter, but rather that the combination of the claim limitations as a whole are not obvious over the prior art.
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Whipple whose telephone number is (571)270-1244. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays from 9:50 AM to 3:50 PM ET and Saturdays from 9:50 AM to 7:50 PM ET.
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 at (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.
/Brian Whipple/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2447
8/23/26
Prosecution Insights