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
This is in response to the Amendment filed on 12/18/2025. Claims 1-15 and new claims 16-28 are presented for examination.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elzur et al., Us Pub. No.20080126559 in view of Kunz et al, US Pub. No.20230199483.
As to claim 1, ELzur discloses a method comprising:
establishing a first secure connection between a first client (306a fig.3A) and a first
gateway (304a fig.3A), receiving first data over the first secure connection from the first
client at the first gateway, at the first gateway, filtering the first data and mapping the first data in a first subdata and second subdata (the edge node 304a may receive and process the packet
comprising an IPsec secured payload and may decrypt and/or remove the IPsec header/trailer/ICV from the payload of the packet, see abstract, fig.3A, [0072]),
transmitting the first subdata to a first location via second secure connection (308 fig.3A) and transmitting the second subdata to a second location via a third secure connection (304b fig.3A), wherein the second location is different from the first location (the (308 fig.3A) for making decisions pertaining to filtering, forwarding, and/or tunneling, and may be based on the Layer 3 information comprising the IP datagram payload while (304b fig.3A) adds IPsec encryption and/or formatting of the payload before transmitting the packet into the network, see [0073] to [0074]).
Elzur does not specifically disclose that the first data is unencrypted over a connection and at the first gateway, encrypting the first subdata using a first unique key and encrypting the second subdata using a second unique key wherein the second unique key is different from the firs y unique key, transmit the encrypted via a second connection and transmitting the encrypted second subdata via a third connection. However, Kunz discloses that the first data is unencrypted over a connection and at the first gateway ( transmitting 604 a request message to an edge server function including an unencrypted EEC-ID, see [0066]), encrypting the first subdata using a first unique key and encrypting the second subdata using a second unique key wherein the second unique key is different from the firs y unique key, transmit the encrypted via a second connection and transmitting the encrypted second subdata via a third connection (the encrypted EEC-ID is encrypted with an authentication and key management (AKMA) key (K.sub.AKMA) and receiving 604 a response message from the edge server function and the response message includes a second K.sub.AFEEC key used by the edge server function, see [0065] to [0069]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention wad made to incorporate Kunz;s teachings into the computer system of Elzure to control encrypted data because it would have enabled deriving a key based on an edge enabler client identifier in a communciaiton network (see Kunz’s [0035[).
As to claim 2, ELzur discloses the first connection is an encrypted connections (encryption processing, see [0063] to [0065]).
As to claim 3, ELzur discloses the filtering at the gateway is performed based on rules or policies stored at the gateway (encryption of data packets, see [0063] to [0065]).
As to claim 4, ELzur discloses transmitting the first subdata to a second gateway via a fourth connection (see fig.3A and [0074]). Elzure does not specifically disclose at the first gateway, encrypted using the third unique key and transmit encrypted subdata using the third unuiqe key (the encrypted EEC-ID is encrypted with an authentication and key management (AKMA) key (K.sub.AKMA), see [0065] to [0069]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention wad made to incorporate Kunz;s teachings into the computer system of Elzure to control encrypted data because it would have enabled deriving a key based on an edge enabler client identifier in a communciaiton network (see Kunz’s [0035[).
As to claim 5, Kunz discloses the firs unique key will change base on time (key expiration in time, see [0076]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention wad made to incorporate Kunz;s teachings into the computer system of Elzure to control encrypted data because it would have enabled deriving a key based on an edge enabler client identifier in a communciaiton network (see Kunz’s [0035[).
As to claim 6, ELzur discloses using a first encryption key to encrypt first data transmitted over the first secure connection, transmitting the first encryption key from the first gateway to the a server and storing the first encryption key at the server, at a second gateway, receiving the first encryption key from the server and using the first encryption key to encrypt first subdata transmitted over the second secure connection (encryption processing, see fig.5, [0088] to [0092]).
As to claim 10, ELzur discloses the first secure connection is encrypted using a first encryption key, the second connection is encrypted using a second encryption key, and the third connection is encrypted using a third encryption key, where the first, second, and third encryption keys are different from each other (see [0088] to [0092]).
Claims 11, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 1, 2, 6 and 6 respectively.
As to claim 13, ELzur discloses the first data of the first client comprises data from a first application or sensor of the first client and a second application of the first client (see [0072] to [0074]).
As to claim 16, Kunz further discloses the first unique will change based a policy stored at a server as location or data type (see Kunz’s [0032] to [0035]).
As to claim 17, Elzur discloses the first unqique key is changed based on a IP address of the first location which transmitted from the first location to the first gateway (validation and authentication of IP, see [0044] to [0045]).
As to claim 18, Elzur discloses the first unique key is generated by the first gateway and then transmitted to a server for storage and policies are attached to the first unique key stored in the server (see [0072] to [0075]).
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.
Claim(s) 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elzur et al., Us Pub. No.20080126559 and Kunz as in above and further in view of Verzun et al., US Pub. No.20160219024.
As to claims 7-9, neither Elzure nor Kunz specifically discloses encoding video stream, using the first data comprises secure file transfer protocol (SFTP) data and the key changed based on a GPS location of the first location to the first gateway. However, in a similar network environment, Verzun discloses encoding video stream, using the first data comprises secure file transfer protocol (SFTP) data and the key changed based on a GPS location of the first location to the first gateway (encoding video, GPS tracking information and using secure file transfer protocol (SFTP) (FTP), see [0193] , [0297], [0334]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to implement Verzun's teachings into the computer system of Elzure to process data information because it would prevented any company, government, or individual from taking control of the Internet or limiting its accessibility or its functionality (see Verzun’s [0073]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/18/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-18 under 35 USS 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kunz et al., US Pub. No.20230199483 and Verzun et al., 20160219024
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 Khanh Dinh whose telephone number is (571) 272-3936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8:00 A.m. to 5:00P.m.
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, Cheema Umar, can be reached on (571) 270-3037. 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.
/KHANH Q DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458