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 11/27/25. Claims 1-19 are presented for examination.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Trapani, US Pub. No.20220078180.
As to claim 1, Trapani discloses a system operative to execute a computing service, the
computing service comprising:
at least one routine and at least one service function, each routine associated
with a routine server function and a routine client function, the system comprising:
at least one routine manager operative to execute a routine and configured for: receiving a synchronization requirement associated with the routine, inviting a first routine client (1018a-n of fig.10), according to the synchronization requirement, the first routine client being associated with an instance of the routine client function, to perform a first data communication with a routine server, the routine server (1020 fig.10) being an instance of the routine server function (providing an enhanced user experience and time savings for wireless interface protocols between client devices and EAC devices across multiple disparate EAC systems, see abstract, fig.10, [0080] to [0081]),
inviting a second routine client (one of 1018a-n fig.10), according to the
synchronization requirement, the second routine client being associated with an instance of the routine client function, to perform a second data communication with the routine server: at least one first privacy router operative to forward data traffic associated with the first data communication between the routine server and the first routine client; at least one second privacy router operative to forward data traffic associated with the second data communication between the routine server and the second routine client (a multi-customer EAC application 1014' may synchronize activity and device data upon establishing the correct system mode and executing a transaction with EAC device 1006a, see [0081]).
As to claim 2, Trapani discloses wherein the synchronization requirement is for
sequential communication, and the second data communication occurs after completion
of the first data communication (performing one or more steps or operations for
processing the EAC system authorization data and/or server information within the
multi-customer EAC application, see [0087] to [0088]).
As to claim 3, Trapani discloses the synchronization requirement is for parallel
communications and inviting the second routine client to perform the second data
communication with the routine server, occurs prior to the completion of the first data
communication (see [0080] to [0082]).
As to claim 4, Trapani discloses the synchronization requirement is for parallel
communication, and the second data communication occurs prior to the completion of
the first data communication (see [0080] to [0082]).
As to claim 5, Trapani discloses at least one privacy router receives from the routine
manager instructions indicating to perform proxy re-encryption on the data traffic, and
performs accordingly (encryption process, see [0047] to [0048]).
As to claim 6, Trapani discloses the first privacy router and the second privacy router
are the same entity (see [0062] to [0064]).
As to claim 7, Trapani discloses at least one routine client is a terminal device (see
[0062] to [0064]).
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.
5. Claim(s) 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Trapani US Pub. No.20220078180 in view of Nord et al., US Pub. No.20140164774.
As to claim 8, Trapani discloses a method of executing a computing service,
comprising:
coordinating, by a routine manager (EAC server), the execution of a routine
which form the computing service, in accordance with respective synchronization
requirement; wherein the execution of a routine includes a process of: performing proxy
on data from the routine, forwarding the data from the routine (establishing a data
transfer interface with at least one application server to receive EAC authorization and
server data and using a high security level to create the highest bit encryption
algorithms optionally authenticated by an independent third party, see [0047] to [0049],
[0086]).
Trapani does not specifically disclose performing re-encryption data. However,
Nord discloses performing re-encryption data (re-encryption of data, see [0071] and
[0085]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to implement Nord's teachings into the computer system of Trapani
to encrypt data because it would have enabled load balance client connections amongst
a plurality of backend servers.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 9-18 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 intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject
matter: none of the cited art discloses or teaches a method of executing a computing
service, comprising a combination of sending a first notification to a privacy router
configured for processing the data related to routine execution, the processing
comprising performing proxy re-encryption on the data by using a re-encryption key
related to the receiver of the data and forwarding re-encrypted data from the routine,
and forwarding a second notification to an instance of a routine server function, wherein
the first notification includes: information identifying the computing service and
information identifying the routine; sending a third notification to a privacy router
configured for processing the data related to routine execution, the processing
comprising performing proxy re-encryption on the data by using a re-encryption key
related to the receiver of the data and forwarding re-encrypted data from the routine,
and forwarding a fourth notification to an instance of a routine client function, wherein
the third notification includes: information identifying the computing service and
information identifying the routine; wherein at least one privacy router is further
configured to initiate a communication between the instance of a routine server function
and the instance of a routine client function, in accordance with communication
instructions; and wherein processing the data related to routine execution is performed
in accordance with communication instructions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/27/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the cited reference does not disclose s Routine Manager which is a specific backend architecture component responsible for coordinating processes and a control plane entity the service platform.
Examiner respectfully disagree. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. ,a specific backend architecture component responsible for coordinating processes and a control plane entity the service platform) )are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, Examiner also respectfully point out that the cited reference does disclose the Applicant claimed invention such as a Routine Manager (EAC server 1020 fig.10) for coordinating processes (using one or more EAC server(s) 1020 to send and receive access/authorization credentials for a first plurality of EAC devices 1006a-n and/or a second plurality of EAC devices 1018a-n, (see [0078] to [0081]).
Applicant asserts that the cited reference does not disclose a private router for forwarding data traffic..
Examiner respectfully point out that the cited reference does disclose a private router for forwarding data traffic (using a multi-customer EAC application 1014' to synchronize activity and device data upon establishing the correct system mode and executing a transaction with EAC device 1006a’s and also configured to embed the plurality of authorization data in the non-transitory computer-readable memory device of first client device 1002 and second client device, see [0081]. This is equivalent to a private router as the Applicant claimed.
Applicant further asserts that the motivation is improper.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to implement Nord's teachings into the computer system of Trapani to encrypt data because it would have enabled load balance client connections amongst a plurality of backend servers (see Nord’s [0020]).
Conclusion
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 5:00 P.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