DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
A preliminary amendment was received concurrently with the filing of the present application on 28 September 2023. By this amendment, Claims 18 and 21 have been canceled. Claims 1-17, 19, 20, and 22 are currently pending in the present application.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 8, line 3, it appears that “an encrypted private key” should read “the encrypted private key” to refer back to the private key encrypted in line 2.
In Claim 11, line 1, it appears that “storage” should be inserted before “medium” for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “the service mesh is to control delivery of service requests through the control plane that creates service instances, exchanges policy and telemetry information with a proxy on a data plane” in lines 1-3. It is not grammatically clear what the subject of the phrase “that creates” is intended to be; that is, it is not clear what actually creates the instances or exchanges the policy and telemetry information. It is not clear whether the subject is intended to be the service mesh, the requests, or the control plane itself. This ambiguity renders the claim indefinite.
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 (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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-17, 19, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brown et al, US Patent Application Publication 2023/0179425.
In reference to Claim 1, Wu discloses a first server of a service mesh comprising: interface circuitry; machine-readable instructions; and programmable circuitry to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine-readable instructions to (see Figure 10, network interface device 1012, processor 1002, instructions 1004): detect a second server of the service mesh (see Figure 1A and paragraph 0045, plural servers); cause a public key of the second server to be stored in a first enclave (paragraphs 0030-0031, public key stored in register in enclave); and after an attestation for a second enclave is obtained, cause addition of the second server to the service mesh (see Figure 7B, attestation 750, adding enclave/server to network, see also paragraphs 0063-0064).
In reference to Claim 2, Wu further discloses a control plane of the service mesh (see paragraph 0086).
In reference to Claim 3, Wu further discloses that the service mesh is to control delivery of service requests through the control plane that creates service instances, exchanges policy and telemetry information with a proxy on a data plane (paragraph 0051, plural instances; paragraph 0048, policy).
In reference to Claim 4, Wu further discloses that the programmable circuitry is to cause the first server to request an attestation for the first enclave (paragraph 0031, remote attestation).
In reference to Claim 5, Wu further discloses that the programmable circuitry is to generate a cryptographic measurement of the first enclave (paragraphs 0030-0033, measurement of enclave, see also paragraph 0063).
In reference to Claim 6, Wu further discloses that the programmable circuitry is to cause transmission of the cryptographic measurement to an attestation controller to verify the cryptographic measurement of the first enclave (paragraphs 0031-0033, verifying the measurements).
In reference to Claim 7, Wu further discloses that the programmable circuitry is to cause transmission of a key pair from the first server to a key manager to verify an identity of the first server (see paragraphs 0030-0033, using public and private keys to verify identity, see also paragraph 0038).
In reference to Claim 8, Wu further discloses that the programmable circuitry is to encrypt a private key with the public key of the second server and the second server is to deliver an encrypted private key from the first server to a proxy on a gateway of the service mesh (see paragraph 0053, encrypted key).
Claims 9-15 are directed to software having functionality corresponding substantially to the servers of Claims 1-6 and 8, and are rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 16, 17, 19, 20, and 22 are directed to methods corresponding to the functionality of the servers of Claims 1-3, 5, and 8, and are rejected by a similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights