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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No.18/230,600 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the independent claims of Application No. 18/230,600 anticipate the claims of the current application with only an obvious minor change of an equivalent security protocol. All of the dependent claims largely mirror the dependent claims of the current application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No.18/230,588 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the independent claims of Application No. 18/230,588 anticipate the claims of the current application with only an obvious minor change of an equivalent security protocol. All of the dependent claims largely mirror the dependent claims of the current application.
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.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 recite “providing an endpoint….by decryption”, the context of this is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 recite “provide an endpoint for a second DTLS connection…by decryption” the context for this is unclear, as is whether the second endpoint is the same as the previously mentioned endpoint. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 recite “provide a transport layer endpoint” and “a second transport later endpoint”. It is unclear of this is the same endpoint as first mentioned. The claim states that it is receiving packets from the first and second endpoint, and thus it would be implied that it is the same endpoint. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 recite “for in-network compute operations”. There is no context for what constitutes “in-network” or is there context for what a “compute operation” entails. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 recite “based on packets received”. It is unclear if these are the same packets as stated above received from the first network interface, the second network interface, or both. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 recite “perform reproducible in network compute operations”. Examiner again asserts that the terms “in network” (written differently than “in-network above) entails. Examiner asserts that “compute operations” is completely without context and is indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 recite “perform DTLS encryption of data generated by the in network compute operations for reordered data prior to transmission” Examiner again points to the terms “in network” and “compute operations” as indefinite. Additionally it is unclear if “data” is “the data” previously mentioned, or if “reordered data” relates to a prior statemen to reordering packets. Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner encourages Applicant to perform a thorough review of the dependent claims to clean up all dependencies and outstanding issues of clarity.
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, 11, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGrew US 2015/0033014 in view of McGrew US 2013/0029487 in view of Hughes US 7,248,586
As per claims 1, 11, and 16. McGrew teaches An apparatus comprising: an interface and circuitry coupled to the interface, the circuitry configured to: provide an endpoint for a Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) connection with a first network interface device by decryption of DTLS encrypted data from packets received from the first network interface device, provide an endpoint for a second DTLS connection with a second network interface device by decryption of DTLS encrypted data from packets received from the second network interface device, provide a transport layer endpoint for the packets received from the first network interface device, provide a second transport layer endpoint for the packets received from the second network interface device, wherein the packets received from the first and second network interface devices provide data for in-network compute operations, based on packets received out of order from the first and second network interface devices, reorder the packets received from the first and second network interface devices, perform reproducible in network compute operations for reordered data from the reordered packets based on a floating point (FP) format, and perform DTLS encryption of data generated by the in network compute operations for reordered data prior to transmission. (McGrew *broadly* teaches in general the use of DTLS and decryption, reordering packets based on sequence, or discarding packets that are not in sequence) [0026] [0029]
Hughes more explicitly teaches packet reordering (Column 5 line 26-Column 6 line 55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the are before the effective filing date of the current invention to use the teaching of Huges with the prior art because it improves packet forwarding.
Claims 2-10, 12-15, 17-20 will be addressed in a subsequent office action once Applicant has amended and corrected the numerous USC 112 rejections in order to provide definitive subject matter to be addressed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-3833. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Luu Pham can be reached at (571) 270-5002. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights