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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 19 posted on 06/30/2023 are presently pending in the application and have been examined below, of which claims 1, 9 and 16 are presented in independent form.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 06/30/2023. These drawings are accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) dated 08/06/2024 has been received and considered.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101, non-statutory
(Directed to a non-statutory subject matter)
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
therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claim 16 is directed toward a “computer-readable storage medium”. The specification as originally filed fails to set forth the metes and bounds of what is meant to be encompassed by the term “storage medium” readable by a computer. As such, it would have been reasonable to interpret the term as encompassing signals per se and as such claim 20 can broadly, but reasonably be interpreted to being directed towards signals per se, which is not statutory. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357, 84 USPQ2d 1495, 1503 (Fed. Cir. 2007). One way applicant can overcome this rejection is by instead reciting "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium" in place of “computer-readable storage medium". Dependent claims are rejected upon their dependence on the base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented,
described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 7 – 11 and 15 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 20230239279) (hereafter Liu).
As per claim 1 Liu discloses: A method for processing data of a security protocol, the method comprising: receiving a data packet associated to the security protocol over a network; determining, whether the data packet belongs to a group of post fragmented, PF, packets (Liu, in para. [0008] discloses processing of data packets in a communication network by a security protocol, IPsec, e.g., in a tunnel mode, the encapsulated security payload, ESP, using fragmentation by communication devices); processing the content of the data packet according to the security protocol if the data packet does not belong to the group of post fragmented packets; and forwarding the data packet if the data packet does belong to the group of post fragmented packets (Liu, in para. [0066] discloses the path maximum transmission unit, PMTU, which manages data packets by separating into different groups: fragmented and not fragmented, that are processed separately).
As per claim 2 Liu discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the security protocol implements at least one of encryption or authentication (Liu, in para. [0009, 0012] discloses IPsec implementation for encryption/decryption of data packets controlled by the PTMU unit).
As per claim 3 Liu discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the security protocol is at least one of IPsec, TLS or DTLS (Liu, in para. [0009] discloses implementation IPsec protocol to control data communication in the network).
As per claim 7 Liu discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the data packet belonging to the group of post fragmented packets are forwarded for stateful processing using a further entity (Liu, in para. [0066] discloses the path maximum transmission unit, PMTU, which manages data packets by separating into different groups: fragmented and not fragmented, that are processed separately).
As per claim 8 Liu discloses: The method of claim 7, wherein the further entity comprises circuitry configured to drop the data packet belonging to the group of post fragmented packets if an identical data packet was already received within the extended ARW or within a preceding post fragmented data packet (Liu, in para. [0009] discloses dropping of the data packets processed withing the IPsec protocol based on comparison of IP data-gram with predefined thresholds).
As per claim 9, claim 9 encompasses same or similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected based on the same reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 1.
As per claims 10 – 11 and 15, claims 10 – 11 and 15 encompasses same or similar scope as claims 2 – 3 and 7, respectively. Therefore claims 10 – 11 and 15 are rejected based on the same reasons as set forth in respective claims 2 – 3 and 7.
As per claim 16, claim 16 encompasses same or similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected based on the same reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 1.
As per claims 17 – 18, claims 17 – 18 encompass same or similar scope as claims 2 – 3, respectively. Therefore claims 17 – 18 are rejected based on the same reasons as set forth in respective claims 2 – 3.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 4 – 6, 12 – 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20230239279) (hereafter Liu) and in view of Thakkar et al. (US 20220303310) (hereafter Thakkar).
As per claim 4 Liu does not explicitly disclose: processing of data packets using anti replay window, ARW. However, Thakkar discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: dropping the data packet (Liu, in para. [0009] discloses dropping of the data packets processed withing the IPsec protocol based on comparison of IP data-gram with predefined thresholds), if an identical data packet (PF and non PF) was already received within a Standard Anti Replay Window, ARW (Thakkar, in para. [0045] discloses data processing within IPsec protocol using the Anti Replay Window, ARW).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu in view of teaching of Thakkar because they both disclose data processing in a network within the IPsec protocol. The motivation to combine would be to modify teaching of Liu for implementation of ARW to improve security in the system.
As per claim 5 Liu as modified disclose: The method of claim 1, further comprising: dropping the data packet (Liu, in para. [0009] discloses dropping of the data packets processed withing the IPsec protocol based on comparison of IP data-gram with predefined thresholds) if the data packet belongs to a group of post fragmented packets (Liu, in para. [0066] discloses the path maximum transmission unit, PMTU, which manages data packets by separating into different groups: fragmented and not fragmented, that are processed separately) and if the data packet is outside an allowable extended ARW, the extended ARW being the Standard ARW extended by a supplemental ARW (Thakkar, in para. [0046] discloses data processing within IPsec protocol using updates for the ARW, i.e., extensions to standard ARW).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu in view of teaching of Thakkar because they both disclose data processing in a network within the IPsec protocol. The motivation to combine would be to modify teaching of Liu for implementation of ARW to improve security in the system.
As per claim 6 Liu as modified disclose: The method of claim 5, further comprising: Increasing the supplemental ARW to include the data packet if the data packet is inside of the allowable extended ARW (Thakkar, in para. [0046] discloses data processing within IPsec protocol using updates for the ARW, i.e., extensions to standard ARW).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu in view of teaching of Thakkar because they both disclose data processing in a network within the IPsec protocol. The motivation to combine would be to modify teaching of Liu for implementation of ARW to improve security in the system.
As per claims 12 – 14, claims 12 – 14 encompass same or similar scope as claims 4 – 6, respectively. Therefore claims 12 – 14 are rejected based on the same reasons as set forth in respective claims 4 – 6.
As per claim 19, claim 19 encompasses same or similar scope as claim 4. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected based on the same reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: He US_20230074712, Loughran US_20060218390.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VLADIMIR IVANOVICH GAVRILENKO whose telephone number is (313)446-6530. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 EST.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/VLADIMIR I GAVRILENKO/Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights