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 .
Response to Amendments
This office action is responsive to the amendments filed on 09/18/2025. In which,
Claims 1-20 are pending and being considered.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, 14-16 and 18 are amended.
Claims 1, 8, 15 and 18 are independent.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicant’s arguments/remarks,
filed on 09/18/2025, have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, the arguments are rendered moot in light of the new grounds of rejections outlined below, which were necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
Regarding claim objections for claims 6-7 and 14, the claim objections have been
waived in view of the amendments. However, the amendments have raised new issues which are described in the claim objections below.
Regarding claim rejections under 112(b) for claims 1-20, the claim rejections has
been waived.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 USC 101, the claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-18
and 20 remain rejected, as described below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected due to the following informalities:
Regrading claims 1 and 15, the claims recite “generating, for each segment, verification information based on each segment and a sending sequence number of each segment;” which should be clarified and corrected as “generating, for each segment of the segments, verification information based on each of the segments and a sending sequence number of each of the segments;”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regrading claim 1 and 15, the claims recite “wherein the sending sequence number of each segment is not sent to the destination end.” which should be clarified and corrected as “wherein the sending sequence number of each of the segments is not sent to the destination end.”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regrading claims 2-3 and 16, the claims recite “each segment.” which should be clarified and corrected as “each of the segments.”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regrading claim 8 and 18, the claims recite “wherein the verification information for each segment is generated based on each segment and a sending sequence number of each segment;” which should be clarified and corrected as “wherein the verification information for each of the segments is generated based on each of the segments and a sending sequence number of each of the segments;”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regrading claim 8 and 18, the claims recite “wherein the sending sequence number of each segment is not obtained; ” which should be clarified and corrected as “wherein the sending sequence number of each of the segments is not obtained; ”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regrading claim 8 and 18, the claims recite “verifying, for each segment based on each segment, the receiving sequence number of each segment, and the verification information of each segment, whether a transmission exception exists in each segment.” which should be clarified and corrected as “verifying, of the segments, the receiving sequence number of each of the segments, and the verification information of each of the segments, whether a transmission exception exists in each of the segments.”. Appropriate correction is required.
Remaining dependent claims are objected since they depend on and/or carries the deficiencies of the parent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-18 and 20 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“2019 PEG”), effective January 7, 2019, claims are directed to an abstract idea without being significantly more nor being integrated into a practical application. The claims are directed towards data transmission between source-end and destination-end.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is directed towards a method and recites the limitations “obtaining to-be-transmitted data; dividing the to-be-transmitted data into segments; obtaining a sending sequence of the segments; generating, for each segment, verification information based on each segment and a sending sequence number of each segment; and sending, to a destination end, the segments and the verification information for each of the segments, wherein the sending sequence number of each segment is not sent to the destination end.” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or includes some additional physical steps such as to encompass performance by a human using pen and paper but for the recitations of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites additional elements, e.g., destination end. These element(s) in the claim are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) including ‘destination end’ in the claim is recited at a high-level of generality. Such that, the method steps “obtaining to-be-transmitted data; dividing the to-be-transmitted data into segments; obtaining a sending sequence of the segments; generating, for each segment, verification information based on each segment and a sending sequence number of each segment; and sending, to a destination end, the segments and the verification information for each of the segments, wherein the sending sequence number of each segment is not sent to the destination end.” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is directed towards a method and recites the limitations “receiving, from a source end, segments and verification information for each of the segments, wherein the segments are from to-be-transmitted data, and wherein the verification information for each segment is generated based on each segment and a sending sequence number of each segment; obtaining a receiving sequence number of each of the segments, wherein the sending sequence number of each segment is not obtained; and verifying, for each segment based on each segment, the receiving sequence number of each segment, and the verification information of each segment, whether a transmission exception exists in each segment.” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or includes some additional physical steps such as to encompass performance by a human using pen and paper but for the recitations of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites additional elements, e.g., source end. These element(s) in the claim are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) including ‘source end’ in the claim is recited at a high-level of generality. Such that, the method steps “receiving, from a source end, segments and verification information for each of the segments, wherein the segments are from to-be-transmitted data, and wherein the verification information for each segment is generated based on each segment and a sending sequence number of each segment; obtaining a receiving sequence number of each of the segments, wherein the sending sequence number of each segment is not obtained; and verifying, for each segment based on each segment, the receiving sequence number of each segment, and the verification information of each segment, whether a transmission exception exists in each segment.” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is directed towards ‘An apparatus and recites the limitations “a memory comprising instructions; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to: obtain to-be-transmitted data; divide the to-be-transmitted data into segments; obtain a sending sequence of the segments; generate, for each segment, verification information based on each segment and a sending sequence number of each segment; and send, to a destination end, the segments and the verification information for each of the segments, wherein the sending sequence number of each segment is not sent to the destination end.”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for recitations of generic computer components. That is, other than, “a processor and a memory, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by utilizing some additional physical steps, such as, a human using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites additional elements, e.g., a processor, a memory and destination end. These element(s) in the claim are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) including ‘a processor, a memory and a destination end’ in the claim are recited at a high-level of generality. Such that, the claimed process of “obtain to-be-transmitted data; divide the to-be-transmitted data into segments; obtain a sending sequence of the segments; generate, for each segment, verification information based on each segment and a sending sequence number of each segment; and send, to a destination end, the segments and the verification information for each of the segments, wherein the sending sequence number of each segment is not sent to the destination end.” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components, e.g., a processor and a memory. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is directed towards ‘An apparatus and recites the limitations “a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to: receive, from a source end, segments and verification information for each of the segments, wherein the segments are from to-be-transmitted data, and wherein the verification information for each segment is generated based on each segment and a sending sequence number of each segment; obtain a receiving sequence number of each of the segments, wherein the sending sequence number of each segment is not obtained; and verify, for each segment based on each segment, the receiving sequence number of each segment, and the verification information of each segment, whether a transmission exception exists in each segment.”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for recitations of generic computer components. That is, other than, “a processor and a memory, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by utilizing some additional physical steps, such as, a human using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites additional elements, e.g., a processor, a memory and source end. These element(s) in the claim are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) including ‘a processor, a memory and a source end’ in the claim are recited at a high-level of generality. Such that, the claimed process of “receive, from a source end, segments and verification information for each of the segments, wherein the segments are from to-be-transmitted data, and wherein the verification information for each segment is generated based on each segment and a sending sequence number of each segment; obtain a receiving sequence number of each of the segments, wherein the sending sequence number of each segment is not obtained; and verify, for each segment based on each segment, the receiving sequence number of each segment, and the verification information of each segment, whether a transmission exception exists in each segment.” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components, e.g., a processor and a memory. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Further, the recited elements within dependent claims 3-7, 10-14, 17 and 20 taken individually do not amount to “significantly more” than just the abstract idea as previously identified above. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the previously defined abstract idea. Some of the evidences of “significantly more” are a) improvement to another technology or field; b) applying judicial exception with or by a “particular machine’; c) transforming particular article/data into different state or thing; d) adding unconventional or non-routine steps, producing useful application; and e) other meaningful limitations beyond generic link to particular technological environment.
As a result, the claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as the claims do not contain any element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360. Under Alice, that is not sufficient "to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
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, 8, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Lutiis et al. (US 2009/0210707 A1; hereinafter “DeLutiis”) in view of Muratani, Hirofumi (US 2002/0116618 A1; hereinafter “Muratani”).
Regarding claim 1, DeLutiis teaches A method, comprising: obtaining to-be-transmitted data (DeLutiis in Abstract and/or Fig. 1 and associated para. [0025-0033], discloses a communication node 5 that includes a sender control module 10 and a sender 2 connected to the sender control module 10, whereby a first stream of data is received by the sender control module 10 from the sender 2. The first stream of data that is to be transmitted over a first channel, e.g. channel 7, toward a receiver control module 11 of a communication node 6); dividing the to-be-transmitted data into segments (DeLutiis in para. [0040], discloses that the sender control module 10 divides the stream sent by the sender 2 into a plurality of blocks); generating, for each segment based on each segment, verification information (DeLutiis in para. [0040], discloses that the sender control module 10 divides the stream sent by the sender 2 into a plurality of blocks [...], calculates an authentication value for each block); and
sending, to a destination end, the segments and the verification information for each of the segments, wherein the sending sequence number of each segment is not sent to the destination end (DeLutiis in para. [0040], discloses an embodiment in which the sender control module 10 divides the stream sent by the sender 2 into a plurality of blocks [...], calculates an authentication value for each block and sends the authentication value through the secure channel 8 to the receiver control module 11 (of the communication node 6, as shown in Fig. 1), and as disclosed in para. [0044], the sender control module 10 is activated as soon as it becomes aware of the transmission of a data stream blocks [a.sub.1, a.sub.2, . . . , a.sub.M]; then the data stream is forwarded, unchanged, on the data channel 7 for the receiver, and as disclosed in para. [0030-0031], the receiver control module 11 is arranged upstream of the receiver 3 and includes a receiver data buffer 18, a receiver control buffer 19 and a receiver processor 20. Receiver data buffer 18, e.g. a FIFO queue, is connected to the data channel 7 and stores the data received on the data channel 7. Receiver control buffer 19, e.g. a FIFO queue, is connected to the secure channel 8 and stores the control information (e.g., authentication value for each block) received on the secure channel 8 (in other words, the sender control module 10 sends, to the receiver control module 11, the original data stream blocks via channel 7 and authentication value for each block via channel 8, without sending sequence number for each block of the data stream to the receiver control module 11)).
Although, the cited prior art DELatiis, as disclosed above, teaches “obtaining to-be-transmitted data; dividing the to-be-transmitted data into segments; generating, for each segment based on each segment, verification information; sending, to a destination end, the segments and the verification information for each of the segments, wherein the sending sequence number of each segment is not sent to the destination end.”. However, DeLatiis fails to explicitly disclose but Muratani teaches obtaining a sending sequence of the segments (Muratani in Fig. 8 and para. [0080-0084], discloses to generate SEQUENCE DELTA.g(i) for each block value g(i) of the i-th block of a content, and as disclosed in para. [0066], the content is divided into plural blocks in accordance with a predetermined division method);
generating, for each segment based on each segment and a sending sequence number of each segment, verification information (Muratani in para. [0071 and 0084], discloses that, as shown in FIG. 6, it is assumed that a block value of an i-th block of a content is represented by g(i), and an i-th element of the sequence is represented by .DELTA.g(i). To the block value g(i) of the i-th block of a content, the i-th element .DELTA.g(i) of the sequence is superimposed. A block value h(i) of the i-th block of a content after superimposing DELTA.g(i) becomes h(i)=g(i)+.DELTA.g(i), which is illustrated in FIG. 7. Namely, in this example, the sequence superimposing portion 13 inputs an objective content, and the sequence .DELTA.g(i) (=p(1).times.c(1), p(2).times.C (2), . . . , p(M).times.c(M)), and obtains a block value g(i) for each block of a content, and changes the value of content data in each block so that a block value h(i) after superimposing become the value g(i)+.DELTA.g(i)=g(i)+p(i).times.c(i) as the result of addition of the i-th element of the sequence of numbers .DELTA.g(i)=p(i).times.c(i) to a block value g(i) before superimposing. (herein, block value h(i) of the i-th block of a content (as illustrated in Fig. 7) represents the claimed verification information)); and
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘DeLutiis’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Muratani, such modification would provide prevention against illegal use of the content being transmitted; Muratani in para. [0006].
Regarding claim 8, DeLutiis teaches A method, comprising: receiving, from a source end, segments and verification information for each of the segments, wherein the segments are from to-be-transmitted data (DeLutiis in para. [0050-0053], discloses that the data stream generated by the sender 2 is divided into blocks A.sub.s=[a.sub.s, . . . , a.sub.s+L] having the length L sent with the first control message and each block is accumulated in the sender buffer 12. As soon as a block A.sub.s=[a.sub.s, . . . , a.sub.s+L] is accumulated in the sender buffer 12, the sender processor 13 loads it, step 40, calculates the hash value h.sub.s thereof using the hash function H sent with the first control message, step 42, and sends an authentication message on the secure channel 8, step 44. In particular, after sending the first control message, the sender processor 13 acquires the block [a.sub.k+p+1, . . . , a.sub.k+p+L] following the selected pattern. According to a first embodiment, the authentication message includes the calculated hash value h.sub.s. According to a different embodiment, the sender processor 13 sends the hash value h.sub.s together with an authentication token. The process of acquiring a block, calculating the hash value thereof and sending the authentication message on the secure channel 8 (steps 40-44) can be repeated for the entire stream, thus generating a control stream [h.sub.s, h.sub.s+L, h.sub.s+2L, . . . ].), and wherein the verification information for each segment is generated based on each segment (DeLutiis in para. [0040], discloses that the sender control module 10 divides the stream sent by the sender 2 into a plurality of blocks [...], calculates an authentication value for each block);
verifying, for each segment based on each segment, the verification information of each segment, whether a transmission exception exists in each segment (DeLutiis in para. [0060-0061] discloses that the receiver processor 20 loads the block B.sub.s=[b.sub.s, . . . , b.sub.s+L] from the receiver data buffer 18, calculates the hash value f.sub.s thereof through the hash function H, loads the received hash value h.sub.s (e.g., authentication value for each block) from the receiver control buffer 19, and compares f.sub.s with h.sub.s, step 70. If the result of the comparison is positive, that is if f.sub.s=h.sub.s, it follows that [b.sub.s, . . . , b.sub.s+L]=[a.sub.s, . . . , a.sub.s+L] and the received block B.sub.s is authenticated. Therefore, the receiver is assured that the received block has been sent by the assumed sender (authenticity of the parties) and it has not been modified during the transmission (integrity of the message)).
Although, DeLutiis as disclosed above teaches “receiving, from a source end, segments and verification information for each of the segments, wherein the segments are from to-be-transmitted data, and wherein the verification information for each segment is generated based on each segment; verifying, for each segment based on each segment, the verification information of each segment, whether a transmission exception exists in each segment”. However, DeLutiis fails to explicitly disclose but Muratani teaches wherein the verification information for each segment is generated based on each segment and a sending sequence number of each segment (Muratani in para. [0071 and 0084], discloses that, as shown in FIG. 6, it is assumed that a block value of an i-th block of a content is represented by g(i), and an i-th element of the sequence is represented by .DELTA.g(i). To the block value g(i) of the i-th block of a content, the i-th element .DELTA.g(i) of the sequence is superimposed. A block value h(i) of the i-th block of a content after superimposing DELTA.g(i) becomes h(i)=g(i)+.DELTA.g(i), which is illustrated in FIG. 7. Namely, in this example, the sequence superimposing portion 13 inputs an objective content, and the sequence .DELTA.g(i) (=p(1).times.c(1), p(2).times.C (2), . . . , p(M).times.c(M)), and obtains a block value g(i) for each block of a content, and changes the value of content data in each block so that a block value h(i) after superimposing become the value g(i)+.DELTA.g(i)=g(i)+p(i).times.c(i) as the result of addition of the i-th element of the sequence of numbers .DELTA.g(i)=p(i).times.c(i) to a block value g(i) before superimposing. (herein, block value h(i) of the i-th block of a content (as illustrated in Fig. 7) represents the claimed verification information));
obtaining a receiving sequence number of each of the segments, wherein the sending sequence number of each segment is not obtained (Muratani in Fig. 12 and para. [0066, 0095-0096], discloses that it is determined whether or not the sequence of the numbers DELTA.g' (i) is superimposed on the objective content based on the correlation value of the objective content and the estimated correlation value of the original content (step S16). A determination result is output (step S17). This processing is repeated until it is determined that the sequence of the numbers DELTA.g' (i) is superimposed on the objective content that is divided into plural blocks. And as disclosed in para. [0098-0099], wherein the sequence generator 22 generates sequence numbers .DELTA.g'(i) corresponding to the sequence seed supplied from the sequence seed generator 21. The sequence numbers .DELTA.g' (i) from the sequence generator 22 are then supplied to the detector 23 for determination. (herein, the generated sequence numbers .DELTA.g' (i) represents the receiving sequence numbers based on which the verification is being performed. In other words, the sending sequence numbers DELTA.g (i) are not being received and obtained to verify the objective content that is divided into plural blocks)); and
verifying, for each segment based on each segment, the receiving sequence number of each segment (Muratani in Fig. 12 and para. [0066, 0095-0096], discloses that it is determined whether or not the sequence of the numbers DELTA.g' (i) is superimposed on the objective content based on the correlation value of the objective content and the estimated correlation value of the original content (step S16). A determination result is output (step S17). This processing is repeated until it is determined that the sequence of the numbers DELTA.g' (i) is superimposed on the objective content that is divided into plural blocks at step S16).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘DeLutiis’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Muratani, such modification would provide prevention against illegal use of the content being transmitted; Muratani in para. [0006].
Regarding claim 15, the claim is drawn to an apparatus and recites substantially similar subject matter as of method claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation (obviousness) as used above for the method claim 1. The claim 15 also recites, “a processor and a memory” which are described in fig. 1 and para. [0030] of the DeLutiis.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is drawn to an apparatus and recites substantially similar subject matter as of method claim 8. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation (obviousness) as used above for the method claim 8. The claim 18 also recites, “a processor and a memory” which are described in fig. 1 and para. [0030] of the DeLutiis.
Claims 2, 9, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Lutiis et al. (US 2009/0210707 A1; hereinafter “DeLutiis”) in view of Muratani, Hirofumi (US 2002/0116618 A1; hereinafter “Muratani”) and further in view of TZENG et al. (US 20190166134 A1; hereinafter “Tzeng”).
Regarding claim 2, DeLutiis as modified by Muratani teaches the method of claim 1, wherein DeLutiis as modified by Muratani fails to explicitly disclose but Tzeng teaches generating the verification information comprises performing, for each segment, a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) operation on a combination of each segment, the sending sequence number, and a key to obtain the verification information (Tzeng, Para. [0048, 0058 & 0063], discloses that the contents of the secured packet 302 (e.g., segment) along with the transmitter packet sequence number may be hashed with the client key/switch key to generate the lightweight ICV 320 (e.g., verification information). In one implementation, the keyed-hash used to generate the lightweight ICV 320 may be a hash-based authentication message code (HMAC), wherein the hashing function F may be, for example, CRC, MD5, SHA-1, SHA-2, etc.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘DeLutiis-Muratani’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Tzeng, in order to detect and prevent Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) attacks between two end points by verifying integrity of the data packets based-on the integrity check value created for each of the data packets; Tzeng, Para. [0028,0058].
Regarding claim 9, DeLutiid as modified by Muratani teaches the method of claim 8, wherein DeLutiid as modified by Muratani fails to explicitly disclose but Tzeng further teaches the verification information comprises a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) (Tzeng, Para. [0048, 0058 & 0063], discloses that the contents of the secured packet 302 (e.g., segment) along with the transmitter packet sequence number may be hashed with the client key/switch key to generate the lightweight ICV 320 (e.g., verification information). In one implementation, the keyed-hash used to generate the lightweight ICV 320 may be a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC), wherein the hashing function F may be, for example, CRC, MD5, SHA-1, SHA-2, etc.), and wherein verifying whether the transmission exception exists comprises verifying, based on a key, whether the transmission exception exists (Tzeng, Para. [0024], discloses to insert an Integrity Check Value (ICV) into every data packet sent by the camera based on a predetermined cryptographic protocol and shared key(s). Based on the ICV and the shared key(s), the switch may verify whether the data packet comes from the camera.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘DeLutiis-Muratani’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Tzeng, in order to detect and prevent Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) attacks between two end points by verifying integrity of data messages based-on the integrity check value created for each of the data packets; Tzeng, Para. [0028,0058].
Regarding claims 16 and 19, the claims are drawn to an apparatus and recites substantially similar subject matter as of method claims 2 and 9, respectively. Therefore, claims 16 and 19 are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation (obviousness) as used above for the method claims 2 and 9, respectively.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Lutiis et al. (US 2009/0210707 A1; hereinafter “DeLutiis”) in view of Muratani, Hirofumi (US 2002/0116618 A1; hereinafter “Muratani”) and further in view of Fukuda et al. (US 20170295019 A1; hereinafter “Fukuda”).
Regarding claim 3, DeLutiis as modified by Muratani teaches the method of claim 1, wherein DeLutiis as modified by Muratani fails to explicitly disclose but Fukuda teaches generating the verification information comprises generating, for each segment based on an identifier of a session, the verification information (Fukuda, Para. [0049 and/or 0097], discloses that authentication processing unit generates authentication information (e.g., verification information) by executing an arithmetic operation using an authentication key based on the sequence number, the encrypted data, the SPI number, and the like of the received packet, and as disclosed in Para. [0047], wherein the SPI (security parameter index) number represents an identifier of a session), and wherein the method further comprises sending, to the destination end, the identifier (Fukuda, Fig. 7 and Para. [0063 or 0074], discloses that, in the transmitting-side session establishment process S11, the communication device 200-1 (Fig. 6) attaches an issued SPI number (S111), and the like to a Security Association (SA) establishment request (S12), and transmits the SA establishment request (S12) to a communication device 200-2 (Fig. 6) that is a transmission destination, and as disclosed in Para. [0047], wherein the SPI (security parameter index) number represents an identifier of a session).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘DeLutiis-Muratani’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Fukuda, in order to prevent data tampering between communication devices by verifying authentication information created for each of the data packets; Fukuda, Para. [0037-0038].
Regarding claim 4, DeLutiis as modified by Muratani in view of Fukuda teaches the method of claim 3, wherein DeLutiis as modified by Muratani fails to explicitly disclose but Fukuda teaches before sending the segments and the verification information, the method further comprises sending, to the destination end, a request header carrying the identifier (Fukuda, Para. [0063 and/or 0072- 0074], FIG. 6 is a diagram illustrating an example of a sequence of packet transmission/reception in a communication device. Hereinafter, a case where a packet is transmitted from the communication device 200-1 to the communication device 200-2 will be described with reference to FIG. 6. When the communication device 200-1 starts transmission of a packet to the communication device 200-2, the communication device 200-1 executes the transmitting-side session establishment process (S11). In addition, the communication device 200-2 that is a transmission destination of the packet receives an SA establishment request and executes the receiving-side session establishment process (S13). FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating an example of a processing flow chart of the transmitting-side session establishment process (S11) and the receiving-side session establishment process (S13). In the transmitting-side session establishment process (S11), the communication device 200-1 attaches an issued SPI number and the like to a Security Association (SA) establishment request (S12), and transmits the SA establishment request (S12) to a communication device 200-2 that is a transmission destination, and as disclosed in Para. [0047], wherein the ESP header includes a Security Parameter Index (SPI) number which represents a different numerical value for each session and which is an identifier of the session. As shown in Figs. 6-9, authentication information generation process S15 and packet transmission process S16 including the authentication information (S164) are performed after the transmitting-side session establishment process (S11), in which the communication device 200-1 attaches an issued SPI number and the like to a Security Association (SA) establishment request (S12), and transmits the SA establishment request (S12) to a communication device 200-2 that is a transmission destination).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘DeLutiis-Muratani’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Fukuda, in order to prevent data tampering between communication devices by verifying authentication information created for each of the data packets; Fukuda, Para. [0037-0038].
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Lutiis et al. (US 2009/0210707 A1; hereinafter “DeLutiis”) in view of Muratani, Hirofumi (US 2002/0116618 A1; hereinafter “Muratani”) and further in view of JI, Yue-qun (CN 107592655 A; hereinafter “Ji”).
Regarding claim 5, DeLutiis as modified by Muratani teaches the method of claim 1, wherein DeLutiis as modified by Muratani fails to explicitly disclose but Ji teaches the method of claim 1, wherein sending the segments and the verification information comprises sending, to the destination end, an end identifier, and wherein the end identifier indicates that transmission of the segments is completed (Ji, pdf page 2 (1st paragraph) & pdf page 4 (6th paragraph), discloses a data packet transmission system and method, comprising a sending end and a receiving end (e.g., destination end). The sending end obtains the data to be transmitted and splits the data to be transmitted to generate a starting/initial packet, a plurality of data packets, an ending packet and packet identification code. The sending end then sends the start/initial packet, the plurality of data packets, and the ending packet to the receiving end. The receiving end then recombines the received data packets to generate the data to be transmitted to check to ensure accuracy and completeness of the data., and as disclosed in claims 4/9, wherein the starting packet comprises an initial packet identifier [….] the end packet comprises an end packet identifier (thus, it is implicit that the end packet comprising an end packet identifier indicates that transmission of the segments is completed)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘DeLutiis-Muratani’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Ji, in order to improve data packet transmission between sending and receiving ends by verifying accuracy and completeness of the transmitted/received data packets; Ji, pdf pages 2-4.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is drawn to an apparatus and recites substantially similar subject matter as of method claim 5. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation (obviousness) as used above for the method claim 5.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Lutiis et al. (US 2009/0210707 A1; hereinafter “DeLutiis”) in view of Muratani, Hirofumi (US 2002/0116618 A1; hereinafter “Muratani”) and further in view of WANG, JIAN-YUAN (CN 111314449 B; hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 6, DeLutiis as modified by Muratani teaches the method of claim 1, wherein DeLutiis as modified by Muratani fails to explicitly disclose but Wang teaches before obtaining the to-be-transmitted data, the method further comprises: starting a plurality of transmission threads (Wang, pdf page 2 (Contents of the Invention), disclose to realizing multi-thread transmission, and/or see also pdf page 3 (last paragraph), discloses to transmit the resource to be transmitted using multi-thread technology to download the segmented resource);
obtaining a to-be-transmitted resource (Wang, pdf page 2 (Contents of the Invention), disclose the method step 1) obtaining the related information of the resource to be transmitted); and
dividing the to-be-transmitted resource into a plurality of pieces of the to-be-transmitted data (Wang, pdf page 2 (Contents of the Invention), disclose the method steps for segmenting the to-be-transmitted resource to obtain a plurality of segmented resource; determining each segment resource needed to be transmitted), and
wherein sending the segments and the verification information comprises sending, to the destination end, at least one of the pieces through one of the transmission threads (Wang, pdf page 2 (Contents of the Invention), disclose the method step of starting the thread to transmit each segment resource. and/or see also pdf page 3 (last paragraph), discloses to transmit the resource to be transmitted, segmenting the transmission resource according to the number of the thread and the data resource size, using multi-thread technology to download the segmented resource, and as disclosed in pdf page 4 (under step 1.1), In particular, the more the number of the thread is, the more the segmentation of the resource to be transmitted is).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘DeLutiis-Muratani’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Wang, in order to improve file transmission efficiency by segmenting the resource to be transmitted according to the number of the thread and the data resource size and using multi-thread technology to download the segmented resource. The multi-thread technique can effectively improve the file transmission efficiency and reduce the transmission time; Wang, pdf page 3.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Lutiis et al. (US 2009/0210707 A1; hereinafter “DeLutiis”) in view of Muratani, Hirofumi (US 2002/0116618 A1; hereinafter “Muratani”) and further in view of WANG, JIAN-YUAN (CN 111314449 B; hereinafter “Wang”) and Fukuda et al. (US 20170295019 A1; hereinafter “Fukuda”).
Regarding claim 7, DeLutiis as modified by Muratani in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 6, wherein DeLutiis further teaches the description data comprises an identifier of the to-be-transmitted resource or a slice range of the to-be-transmitted data (DeLutiis in para. [0047/0050], discloses that the message may include the length L of the blocks (e.g., slice range of the data to-be transmitted). Such as, the data stream generated by the sender 2 is divided into blocks A.sub.s=[a.sub.s, . . . , a.sub.s+L] having the length L sent with the first control message, and/or see also para. [0080] discloses that the synchronization message exchanged between the sender module 10 and the receiver module 11 may [...] contain additional information, such as a sender module identifier and the authentication token, to prove its identity.).
DeLutiis as modified by Muratani in view of Wang fails to explicitly disclose but Fukuda teaches wherein before sending a first segment of the at least one of the pieces, the method further comprises sending, to the destination end, a request header carrying description data (Fukuda, Fig. 6 and Para. [0074], discloses that, in step S12, the communication device 200-1 transmits an SA establishment request attached with an SPI number and information (e.g., description data) to the communication device 200-2 (e.g., destination end) prior to the packet transmission process as illustrated in S16), and
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘DeLutiis-Muratani-Wang’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Fukuda, in order to prevent data tampering between communication devices by verifying authentication information created for each of the data packets; Fukuda, Para. [0037-0038].
Claims 10-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Lutiis et al. (US 2009/0210707 A1; hereinafter “DeLutiis”) in view of Muratani, Hirofumi (US 2002/0116618 A1; hereinafter “Muratani”) and further in view of Fukuda et al. (US 20170295019 A1; hereinafter “Fukuda”).
Regarding claim 10, DeLutiis as modified by Muratani teaches the method of claim 8, wherein DeLutiis as modified by Muratani fails to explicitly disclose but Fukuda teaches further comprising receiving, from the source end, an identifier of a session (Fukuda, Fig. 7 and Para. [0063 or 0074], discloses that, in the transmitting-side session establishment process S11, the communication device 200-1 (e.g., source end) attaches an issued SPI number (S111), and the like to a Security Association (SA) establishment request (S12), and transmits the SA establishment request (S12) to a communication device 200-2 (Fig. 6) that is a transmission destination, and as disclosed in Para. [0047], wherein the SPI (security parameter index) number represents an identifier of a session), wherein verifying whether the transmission exception exists comprises verifying, based on the identifier, whether the transmission exception exists (Fukuda, Para. [0049 and 0097], discloses that authentication processing unit generates authentication information (e.g., verification information) by executing an arithmetic operation using an authentication key based on the sequence number, the encrypted data, the SPI number, and the like of the received packet. The authentication processing unit checks whether or not the generated authentication information and the authentication information included in the received packet match each other, and when the pieces of authentication information (e.g., the sequence number, the encrypted data, the SPI number, and the like) match each other, allows the received packet to pass the second authentication, and as disclosed in Para. [0047], wherein the SPI (security parameter index) number represents an identifier of a session).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘DeLutiis-Muratani’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Fukuda, in order to prevent data tampering between communication devices by verifying authentication information created for each of the data packets; Fukuda, Para. [0037-0038].
Regarding claim 11, DeLutiis as modified by Muratani in view of Fukuda teaches the method of claim 10, wherein DeLutiis as modified by Muratani fails to explicitly disclose but Fukuda teaches receiving the identifier comprises receiving, from the source end, a request header carrying the identifier (Fukuda, Fig. 3 and Para. [0047], discloses that the ESP header includes a Security Parameter Index (SPI) number which represents a different numerical value for each session and which is an identifier of the session, and as disclosed in Fig. 7 and Para. [0063 or 0074], discloses that, in the transmitting-side session establishment process S11, the communication device 200-1 (e.g., source end) attaches an issued SPI number (S111), and the like to a Security Association (SA) establishment request (S12), and transmits the SA establishment request (S12) to a communication device 200-2 (Fig. 6) that is a transmission destination).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘DeLutiis-Muratani’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Fukuda, in order to prevent data tampering between communication devices by verifying authentication information created for each of the data packets; Fukuda, Para. [0037-0038].
Regarding claim 20, the claim is drawn to an apparatus and recites substantially similar subject matter as of method claim 10. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation (obviousness) as used above for the method claim 10.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Lutiis et al. (US 2009/0210707 A1; hereinafter “DeLutiis”) in view of Muratani, Hirofumi (US 2002/0116618 A1; hereinafter “Muratani”) and further in view of JI, Yue-qun (CN 107592655 A; hereinafter “Ji”).
Regarding claim 12, DeLutiis as modified by Muratani teaches the method of claim 8, wherein DeLutiis as modified by Muratani fails to explicilty disclose but Ji teaches receiving the segments and the verification information comprises receiving, from the source end, an end identifier, and wherein the end identifier indicates that transmission of the segments is completed (Ji, pdf page 2 (1st paragraph) & pdf page 4 (6th paragraph), discloses a data packet transmission system and method, comprising a sending end (e.g., source end) and a receiving end (e.g., destination end). The sending end obtains the data to be transmitted and splits the data to be transmitted to generate a starting/initial packet, a plurality of data packets, an ending packet and packet identification code. The sending end then sends the start/initial packet, the plurality of data packets, and the ending packet to the receiving end. The receiving end then recombines the received data packets to generate the data to be transmitted to ensure accuracy and completeness of the data., and as disclosed in claims 4/9, wherein the starting packet comprises an initial packet identifier [….] the end packet comprises an end packet identifier (thus, it is implicit that the end packet comprising an end packet identifier indicates that transmission of the segments is completed)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘DeLutiis as modified by Muratani’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Ji, in order to improve data packet transmission between sending and receiving ends by checking accuracy and completeness of the transmitted/received data packets; Ji, pdf pages 2-4.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Lutiis et al. (US 2009/0210707 A1; hereinafter “DeLutiis”) in view of Muratani, Hirofumi (US 2002/0116618 A1; hereinafter “Muratani”) and further in view of WANG, JIAN-YUAN (CN 111314449 B; hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 13, DeLutiis as modified by Muratani teaches the method of claim 8, wherein DeLutiis as modified by Muratani fails to explicitly disclose but Wang teaches receiving the segments and the verification information comprises receiving, from the source end and through a transmission thread, a piece of the to-be-transmitted data (Wang, pdf page 2 (Contents of the Invention), disclose the method step of starting the thread to transmit each segment resource. and/or see also pdf page 3 (last paragraph), discloses to transmit the resource to be transmitted, by segmenting the resource according to the number of the thread and the data resource size, using multi-thread technology to download the segmented resource, and/or as disclosed in pdf page 4 (under step 1.1), according to the given thread number and size of the resource to be transmitted, segmenting the resource to be transmitted to obtain a plurality of segmented resources. In particular, the more the number of the thread is, the more the segmentation of the resource to be transmitted is.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘DeLutiis as modified by Muratani’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Wang, in order to improve file transmission efficiency by segmenting the resource to be transmitted according to the number of the thread and the data resource size and using multi-thread technology to download the segmented resource. Thus, the multi-thread technique can effectively improve the file transmission efficiency and reduce the transmission time; Wang, pdf page 3.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Lutiis et al. (US 2009/0210707 A1; hereinafter “DeLutiis”) in view of Muratani, Hirofumi (US 2002/0116618 A1; hereinafter “Muratani”) and further in view of WANG, JIAN-YUAN (CN 111314449 B; hereinafter “Wang”) and Fukuda et al. (US 20170295019 A1; hereinafter “Fukuda”).
Regarding claim 14, DeLutiis as modified by Muratani in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 13, wherein DeLutiis further teaches the description data comprises an identifier of a to-be-transmitted resource or a slice range of the to-be-transmitted data (DeLutiis in para. [0047/0050], discloses that the message may include the length L of the blocks (e.g., slice range of the data to-be transmitted). Such as, the data stream generated by the sender 2 is divided into blocks A.sub.s=[a.sub.s, . . . , a.sub.s+L] having the length L sent with the first control message, and/or see also para. [0080] discloses that the synchronization message exchanged between the sender module 10 and the receiver module 11 may [...] contain additional information, such as a sender module identifier and the authentication token, to prove its identity).
However, DeLutiis as modified by Muratani in view of Wang fails to explicitly disclose but Fukuda teaches wherein before receiving the piece, the method further comprises receiving, from the source end, a request header carrying description data (Fukuda, Fig. 6 and Para. [0074], discloses that, in step S12, the communication device 200-1 transmits an SA establishment request attached with an SPI number and information (e.g., description data) to the communication device 200-2 (e.g., destination end) prior to the packet transmission process as illustrated in S16) and
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘DeLutiis-Muratani -Wang’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Fukuda, in order to prevent data tampering between communication devices by verifying authentication information created for each of the data packets; Fukuda, Para. [0037-0038].
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).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI CHEEMA, whose telephone number is 571-272-1239. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-4PM (EST) Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eleni A. Shiferaw can be reached on 571-272-3867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALI H. CHEEMA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497