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
The instant application having Application No. 18/456,658 is presented for examination by the examiner. Claim 13 has been canceled. Claims 21 added. Claims 1-12 and 14-21 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim rejections under this statute have been overcome by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11, and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-8, 11, 12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USP 10,764,291 to Driever et al., hereinafter Driever.
As per claims 1, 11, and 16, Driever teaches a computer system for facilitating processing within a computing environment (Fig. 2A), the computer system comprising:
a memory (204); and
at least one device coupled to the memory (0121), wherein the computer system is configured to perform a method (shown in Fig. 4), the method comprising:
obtaining, by a receiving network device [storage device SD 104] of a network, a command built to enable an operative system [EKM client inside of SD 104 is contained within computer system 200 having OS 216 (col. 4, line 62-col. 5, line 3) and it is stated that the OS can perform the instructions of the invention; col. 5, lines 23-28] of a device [host 102] coupled to the receiving network device to provide to the receiving network device shared confidential data [session keys wrapped inside the wrapping key; col. 10, lines 48-54] otherwise inaccessible to the receiving network device [SD did not have access to the session key prior; col. 11, lines 40-50];
obtaining, by the receiving network device, the shared confidential data from the command [obtains the information: send/receive keys; col. 12, lines 25-33]; and
using, by the receiving network device, the shared confidential data in performing one or more actions [uses session key to encrypt/decrypt messages; col. 10, lines 22-24 and col. 12, lines 33-35].
As per claim 2, Driever teaches the network is a storage area network, and the receiving network device is part of the storage area network (col. 13, lines 62-66).
As per claim 3, Driever teaches the shared confidential data is data used in encryption [col. 10, lines 22-24].
As per claims 4, 12, 17, Driever teaches the shared confidential data is data used to generate one or more keys to decrypt encrypted data[obtains the information: send/receive keys; col. 12, lines 25-33].
As per claim 5, Driever teaches the program instructions to use the shared confidential data include program instructions to generate one or more keys, based on the shared confidential data, to be used to decrypt encrypted data [obtains the information: plural send/receive keys; col. 12, lines 25-33].
As per claim 6 and 18, Driever teaches the command uses a command structure built to be used with the command, the command structure provided to the receiving network device and including the shared confidential data [message wrapped in a wrapping key known to the host by inclusion of the UUID in the message; col. 11, lines 42-50].
As per claims 7 and 19, Driever teaches the command structure further includes one or more fields to include information to be used by the receiving network device to generate one or more keys to be used to decrypt encrypted data [the UUID enables the SD to generate the Wrapping key from 106; col. 11, lines 52-63; also, the message contains information specifying multiple encrypt/decryption keys; col. 12, lines 25-33].
As per claim 8, Driever teaches the information includes one or more identifications of a source device and a target device of a message [host read/writes to storage device, messages are back and forth so they know the source and target; col. 10, lines 47-57], the message including the encrypted data to be decrypted by the receiving network device (col. 12, line 10).
As per claim 14, it is rejected for the same reason as claims 6 and 7.
As per claim 15 it is rejected for the same reasons as claims 8 and 9.
As per claim 20 it is rejected for the same reasons as claims 8 and 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10, and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any and all intervening claims. The closest art to teach this feature is USP 7,882,354 that decides on whether or not to provide encryption when sending the command to a tape device. This is not analogous to the previously applied prior art because encryption is always used. USP 7,882,354 does teach most of claims 1, 6, 7, and 10 but not all of the particular information as required by claim 8.
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 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 MICHAEL R. VAUGHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7316. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:30am - 5:00pm, EST. 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 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.
/MICHAEL R VAUGHAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights