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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/4/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to Applicant’s argument that, “There is no disclosure in Konda of a gateway obtaining a certificate on behalf of a separate backend service and provisioning that certificate to the service for installation. The amended limitation requiring that the service be distinct from the gateway and that the signed certificate be installed at the service therefore is not met by Konda” (Remarks, p. 9), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The home gateway management cloud manages the routers of the home network and through the DNS management service obtains a signed certificate for the router in a particular subdomain (Konda, [0080-0086]). It is pointed out that there is no actual installation of certificate(s). The limitations are all directed to “a signed certificate to be installed at the service” (cl. 1, ll. 7 and 18-19, cl. 10, ll. 9 and 19-20, cl. 18, ll. 8 and 18-19). The gateway, in an alternate approach, directly contacts the certificate authority to get certificates (Konda, [0092]). The gateway and the service are two distinct entities. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 10, and 18 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
As to claims 1-20, there is not a positive recitation of a limitation of actually installing a certificate at the service. The limitations only state that a “signed certificate [is] to be installed” and “to be installed by the service” at some time in the future (cl. 1, ll. 7 and 18-19, cl. 10, ll. 9 and 19-20, cl. 18, ll. 8 and 18-19). The balance of the claims are similarly rejected for being dependent from a rejected base claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. No. 2021/0266185 to Konda et al. (hereinafter Konda) in view of US Patent No. 8,327,128 to Prince et al. (hereinafter Prince).
As to claims 1, 10, and 18 as best understood, Konda teaches:
a. Receiving, by a gateway and from a client device, a first request, wherein the first request is to access a service, wherein the service is distinct from the gateway and is configured to communicate with the client device (gateway receives service request and the service is distinct from the gateway) (Konda, [0080-0088]).
b. Receiving, by the gateway and from the service, a second request, wherein the second request is for a signed certificate to be installed at the service (signed certificate signing request (CSR)) (Konda, [0081]).
c. Determining, by the gateway, that the service utilizes a TLS protocol secured by encryption using a public key and a private key in a key pair, wherein the gateway constructs a Certificate Signing Request (CSR) signed with the private key and transmits the CSR to a certificate authority via an Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) protocol challenge prior to retrieving the signed certificate, and wherein the gateway communicates with the certificate authority on behalf of the service (enrolling and using a TLS connection to conduct the operations of the reference and signing the CSR with the private key) (Konda, [0092, 0116, 0131, and 0146]).
d. Determining, by the gateway, the certificate authority to retrieve the signed certificate (interacting with a certificate authority to generate signed certificate) (Konda, [0092]).
e. Retrieving, by the gateway, the signed certificate from the certificate authority (signed certificate generated and stored) (Konda, [0081]).
Konda as modified does not expressly mention the installation of a signed certificate. However, in an analogous art, Prince teaches:
f. Sending the signed certificate and the private key to the service to be installed by the service for using in securing communications with the client device using the TLS protocol (certificate installed for secure communication) (Prince, 8:12-26 and Konda, [0086 and 0116] (sending private key within TLS)).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application would have been motivated to implement the secure communication scheme of Konda as modified with the installation of a signed certificate of Prince in order to enable a secure communication session as suggested by Prince (Prince, 8:12-26]).
As to claims 2 and 11, Konda as modified teaches the gateway is a reverse proxy associated with the service (proxy server is a go-between the entities negotiating a secure session between the client and the origin server) (Prince, at least Abstract).
As to claims 3, 12, and 19, Konda as modified teaches the gateway includes a domain name service to resolve and communicate network traffic through the gateway (DNS) (Konda, [0018]).
As to claims 4 and 13, Konda as modified teaches the gateway utilizes an automatic certificate management environment (ACME) protocol with the certificate authority to receive the signed certificate (ACME) (Konda, [0040]).
As to claims 5 and 14, Konda as modified teaches the service is a server associated with remote desktop connections (Remote functionality is included) (Konda, [0058]).
As to claims 6 and 15, Konda as modified teaches the key pair is associated with a second remote server (the network comprises one or more servers and some of those servers can be remote) (Konda, 0052]).
As to claims 8 and 17, Konda as modified teaches facilitating a secured communication channel by transmitting encrypted communications between the client device and the service, wherein the encrypted communications are encrypted by a session key (session key used for secure connections) (Prince, 20:3-8).
As to claim 9, Konda as modified teaches the first request is received from a network device upon configuration of the gateway with the service (gateway receives service request to forward to the service) (Konda, [0084]).
Claims 7, claim 16, and claim 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. No. 2021/0266185 to Konda et al. (hereinafter Konda) in view of US Patent No. 8,327,128 to Prince et al. (hereinafter Prince) as applied to claim 1, claim 10, and claim 18 respectively above, and further in view of IETF 8555 Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME) to Barnes et al.
As to claims 7, 16, and 20, Konda as modified teaches using ACME (Konda, [0040] does not explicitly recite the details of ACME. However, in an analogous art Barnes teaches:
a. Receiving, by the gateway and from the service, an authorized request to revoke the signed certificate (certificate revocation procedures) (Barnes, 7.6).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application would have been motivated to implement the secure communication scheme of Konda as modified with the details of certificate revocation of Barnes in order to facilitate certificate management functions including revocation as suggested by Barnes (Barnes, Abstract).
Konda as modified further teaches:
b. Transmitting the authorized request to the certificate authority, whereby when received by the certificate authority, the certificate authority publishes revocation information associated with the authorized request and the signed certificate (Barnes outlines the revocation procedure for ACME) (Barnes, 7.6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S POWERS whose telephone number is (571)272-8573. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:30.
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, Jorge L Ortiz-Criado can be reached at (571) 272-7624. 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.
/WILLIAM S POWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496