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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 9, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-7 are pending in the application. Claims 4-5 are currently amended. No claims have been canceled. No new claims are currently added.
Response to Arguments
With regard to Applicant’s remarks dated February 9, 2026:
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Applicant’s amendment has been fully considered and is sufficient with respect to antecedent basis issues. Therefore, the rejection with respect to those issues has been withdrawn. However, other issues remain and were not addressed by an amendment or persuasive argument. Thus, the rejection with respect to claim 1 is maintained.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s amendment and arguments have been fully considered. Applicants argue at the bottom of page 5 of the Remark, as filed, that “in the Advisory action, the Examiner appears not to have considered Applicant’s remarks directed to Bailly”. However, Applicants failed to provide any argument against teachings of Bailly besides broad mention of Bailly ones in the phrase “…even with Bailly’s service coordination…” when arguing against teachings of Pawar at page 6 of the Remarks, as filed. Therefore, there was nothing to consider in the Advisory action with respect to Bailly.
Applicant’s further arguments presented at pages 6-7 of the Remarks, as filed, are the exact same arguments already presented after Final in the response dated 01/07/2026 and fully addressed in the Advisory action dated 01/16/2026, which are not repeated for brevity. Therefore, while Applicants admit that the Advisory action was received and reviewed (see bottom of page 5 of the Remarks, as filed), Applicant’s remarks dated 02/09/2026 failed to address Examiner’s rebuttal that would have advanced the prosecution.
As to any arguments not specifically addressed, they are the same as those discussed above.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, in step 3, it is unclear under what circumstances a common name would be used instead of the second proprietary name for the message to be forwarded to an external network where the claim positively requires the message to be addressed using the second proprietary name and not the common name.
Appropriate correction or explanation is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pawar et al. (US 2017/0331815 A1) in view of Bailly et al. (US 2019/0116140 A1).
As to claim 1, Pawar teaches a method for high-security network message transmission based on a virtual private network (abstract, Fig. 1), comprising the steps of:
step 1 : authenticating a first user machine by means of a first certificate and allowing the first user machine to join [“allowing to join” is not an active step and is treated as intended use statement. Applicants are advised to amend the claim by reciting “…, wherein, upon successful authentication, the first user machine joins a first self-configuration peer-to-peer network…] a first self-configuration peer-to-peer virtual private network electrically connected with a first private communication box [devices 102 perform VPN-based authentication using VPN 106 where a certificate associated with the device 102 is used by the identity provider 108 to establish the user identity associated with request] (par. [0017]-[0018]);
step 2 : registering the first user machine in a backend name decoder [IDP 108] of the virtual private network using the first certificate, wherein the backend name decoder assigns a first proprietary name [identity assertion is obtained from the IDP 108] to the first user machine and binds it to the certificate (par. [0018]-[0023]);
step 3: transmitting a first private message from the first user machine [user of the device 102 is accessing the cloud service 104 by sending access request as part of the browsing session] (par. [0027]).
While Pawar teaches establishing communication with cloud services 104 (Fig. 1), Pawar fails to expressly teach that device 102 communicates with another user machine via a private transfer protocol server, wherein the message is addressed using a second proprietary name corresponding to a second user machine and is retained by the private transfer protocol server until a connection is established with the second user machine having the matching proprietary name. (it is noted that “forwarding” step is not required because of the “or” condition).
Bailly is directed to retaining messages that cannot be transmitted to a recipient and performing retransmission of those messages (abstract). In particular, Bailly teaches that a first use machine [device 100] communicates with a second user machine [device 102] via a private transfer protocol server [application server 103] (Fig. 1), wherein the message is addressed using a second proprietary name corresponding to a second user machine (par. [0090]) and is retained by the private transfer protocol server until a connection is established with the second user machine having the matching proprietary name [performing “store and forward” function where messages which cannot be forwarded immediately to their final recipient are stored and retransmitted at a later time] (par. [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Pawar by having device 102 of Pawar communicate with another user machine such as device 110 of Pawar via a private transfer protocol server, wherein the message is addressed using a second proprietary name corresponding to a second user machine and is retained by the private transfer protocol server until a connection is established with the second user machine having the matching proprietary name, in order to allow exchange of messages between devices 102 and 110 of Pawar to allow data sharing in addition to exchange of messages between devices 102, 110 and cloud services residing on a device other than a second user machine (par. [0003] in Bailly).
As to claim 2, Pawar in view of Bailly teaches that the backend name decoder and the private transfer protocol server exchange information to coordinate the proprietary name resolution and message delivery (par. [0023]-[0024] in Pawar; par. [0090]-[0091] in Bailly).
As to claim 3, Pawar in view of Bailly teaches that the private transfer protocol server coordinates one or more services including an e-mail service or interactive-session message service [instant messages between mobiles phones 100 and 102] (par. [0096] in Bailly).
As to claim 4, Pawar in view of Bailly teaches authenticating the second user machine by means of a second certificate [authenticating user of the device 110 in Pawar] (par. [0027] in Pawar; par. [0090]-[0091] in Bailly) and allowing the second user machine [statement of intended use] to join the same peer-to-peer virtual private network through a second private communication box (par. [0090]-[0091] in Bailly).
As to claim 5, Pawar in view of Bailly teaches registering the second user machine in the backend name decoder using the second certificate, wherein the backend name decoder assigns the second proprietary name to the second user machine (par. [0027] in Pawar; par. [0090]-[0091] in Bailly).
As to claim 6, Pawar in view of Bailly teaches delivering the first private message to the second user machine via the private transfer protocol server upon verification that the second proprietary name matches the message destination (par. [0090]-[0096] in Bailly).
As to claim 7, Pawar in view of Bailly teaches sending a trust relationship invitation from the first user machine to the second user machine [INVITE SIP message] via the private transfer protocol server [AS 103 in Bailly]; and enabling mutual message exchange only upon acceptance of the invitation by the second user machine [response by terminal 102 in the form of a message 402] (par. [0091]-[0094] in Bailly).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLEG SURVILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-9691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/OLEG SURVILLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457