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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S.C not included in this section can be found in the prior office action.
The prior office actions are incorporated herein by reference. In particular, the observations with respect to claim language, and response to previously presented arguments.
Claims 27, 32, 37 and 42 have been amended.
No new claims have been added.
No claims have been cancelled.
Claims 27-42 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 02/25/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statement has been considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
The Double Patenting rejection of the pending claims has been removed in light of approval of the terminal disclaimer filed by applicant.
The rejection of claims 27-41 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments the claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejection of the pending claims are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “including a” is erroneously repeated. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 27, 29, 32, 34, 37, 39 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AN GAE IL et al. KR 20080040256 (hereinafter AN) in view of Watanabe; Hiroshi et al US 10581841 (hereinafter Watanabe).
As per claim 27, AN teaches: A communication system, comprising: a first apparatus including a memory and a processor, the memory being configured to store computer-readable instructions (“According to the CGA-based IP address proof of ownership technology, the host node first generates a private key and a public key, then calculates a hash function from the public key to generate an IP address, and the NDP. The sending host node (a first apparatus)adds the public key with the IP address to the NDP message. Therefore, the NDP receiving host node (a second apparatus) receiving the NDP message calculates a hash function from the public key included in the received NDP message and checks whether the generated IP address is the same as the source IP address of the NDP message. Check for forgery.” AN: page 3, para. 6); and
a second apparatus including a including a memory and a processor, the memory being configured to store computer-readable instructions, wherein the second apparatus communicates with the first apparatus (AN: page 3, para. 6);
wherein, the second apparatus obtains a first public key of the first apparatus [the first public key being generated based on a first private key of the fist apparatus] (AN: page 4, para. 3),
the second apparatus determines an entire first network address of the first apparatus based on an entirety or a part of a first hash value, the first hash value being generated based on the first public key and a predetermined hash function (AN: page 3, para. 6);
the second apparatus transmits to the first apparatus a second public key of the second apparatus, [the second public key being generated based on a second private key of the second apparatus] (AN: page 3, para. 6);
the first apparatus determines an entire second network address of the second apparatus based on an entirety or a part of a second hash value, the second hash value being generated based on the second public key received from the second apparatus and the predetermined hash function (AN: page 3, para. 6), and
the first apparatus and the second apparatus securely communicate with one another over a network external to the first and second apparatuses (AN: page 3, para. 6);
AN does not explicitly teach; however, Watanabe discloses: the first public key being generated based on a first private key of the first apparatus,
the second public key being generated based on a second private key of the second apparatus ("The identification core may. output a public key generated based on the private key with a key generator." Watanabe, Column 23 line 65-66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine AN with the teachings Watanabe of to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in a predictable manner to confined in the identification core. The public key is publicized as a logical address of a logical node. The logical node and the physical node are uniquely linked by the public key and the private key. The security of the whole network is thus effectively improved (Watanabe, Abstract).
As per claim 29, the rejection of claim 27 is incorporated herein. AN teaches: the second apparatus transmits to the first apparatus, a digital certificate associated with the second public key (“the host node generates an RS (Router Solicitation) message having a digital signature and a public key certificate and a public key, and transmits the RS message to the access router.” AN. Abstract).
As per claim 32, this claim defines an apparatus that corresponds to system of claim 27 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 27. Therefore, claim 32 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 27.
As per claim 34, this claim defines an apparatus that corresponds to system of claim 29 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 29. Therefore, claim 34 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 29.
As per claim 37, this claim defines an method that corresponds to system of claim 27 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 27. Therefore, claim 37 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 27.
As per claim 39, this claim defines an apparatus that corresponds to system of claim 29 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 29. Therefore, claim 39 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 29.
As per claim 42, this claim defines a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program that corresponds to system of claim 37 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 37. Therefore, claim 42 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 37.
Claims 28, 33 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AN in view of Watanabe and further in view of BI, Jun CN 101610255 (hereinafter BI).
As per claim 28, the rejection of claim 27 is incorporated herein. The combination of AN and Watanabe does not teach; however, BI discloses: the second apparatus determines as the second private key, a candidate among private keys generated by a random number generator upon a hash value generated based on the predetermined hash function and a public key to be paired with the candidate private key satisfying a condition for use as a network address ("step (2.1), an authentication gateway generates one public and private key pair (p, s), or manually configures one male the private key based on the public key and unidirectional Hash function hash configured in advance, the function can be any one-way hash function" BI: page: 11, lines 12-19)
Therefore, 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 combination of AN and Watanabe with the teaching of BI to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to facilitate secure communication.
As per claim 33, this claim defines an apparatus that corresponds to system of claim 28 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 28. Therefore, claim 33 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 28.
As per claim 38, this claim defines an apparatus that corresponds to system of claim 28 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 28. Therefore, claim 38 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 28.
Claim 30, 31, 35, 36, 40 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AN in view of Watanabe and further in view of Haque; Asad US 20190020648 (hereinafter Haque).
As per claim 30, the rejection of claim 29 is incorporated herein. The combination of AN and Watanabe does not teach; however, Haque discloses: the second apparatus acquires the digital certificate from a certificate authority ("The digital certificate may be created by a certification authority. The second device may transmit the public key and the private key to the certification authority when the second device is initialized, turned on, or when a program is executed on the second device. The certification authority may create the digital certificate for the second device in response to receiving the keys. The certification authority may transmit or install the digital certificate on the second device. "Haque: para. 84).
Therefore, 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 combination of AN and Watanabe with the teaching of Haque to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to ensure the communication is with intended party.
As per claim 31, the rejection of claim 29 is incorporated herein. The combination of AN and Watanabe does not teach; however, Haque discloses: the digital certificate includes at least one of attribute information related to an attribute of the second apparatus and attribute information of a user associated with the second apparatus ("The digital certificate may comprise the public key of the second device. The digital certificate may comprise one or more unique identifiers of the second device (e.g., a string of characters, a hash, a name, or an identification number). The digital certificate may comprise a subject of the public key, such as a serial number or a name (e.g., an X.500 Distinguished Name). "Haque: para. 86).
Therefore, 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 combination of AN and Watanabe with the teaching of Haque to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to ensure the communication is with the intended party.
As per claim 35, this claim defines an apparatus that corresponds to system of claim 30 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 30. Therefore, claim 35 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 30.
As per claim 36, this claim defines an apparatus that corresponds to system of claim 31 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 31. Therefore, claim 36 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 31.
As per claim 40, this claim defines an apparatus that corresponds to system of claim 30 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 30. Therefore, claim 40 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 30.
As per claim 41, this claim defines an apparatus that corresponds to system of claim 31 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 31. Therefore, claim 41 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 31.
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). 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 GHODRAT JAMSHIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1956. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 5712723862. 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.
/GHODRAT JAMSHIDI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights