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 .
Response to Amendments
This is a Final office action in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 10/27/2025.
In the amendment, claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 13-15 are amended. Claim 16 is cancelled. Claim 12 is previously cancelled. Claims 1-11, 13-15 are pending in the application.
The objection to Drawings has been withdrawn in lights of applicant’s replacement sheet submitted on 10/27/2025.
The objections to claims 1, 3-5, 13-16 due to informalities has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment to the claims and cancellation of claim 16. See the updated Claim Objections below.
The rejection of claims 7-8 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment to the claims. See the updated Claim Rejections under 35 USC 112(b) below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, see page 10 of the Remarks filed 10/27/2025 with respect to independent claim 14 rejected under 35 USC 102 over prior arts of record has been fully considered and are persuasive in view of applicant’s amendment to the claim. Claim 14 is amended with scope similar to independent claims 1, 13 and 15. Therefore, the rejection of claim 14 under 35 USC 102 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument, see pages 10-12 of the Remarks filed 10/27/2025 with respect to claims rejected under 35 USC 103 over prior arts of record has been fully considered and are persuasive in view of applicant’s amendment to the independent claims 1, 13, 15. Upon updated search and review, examiner asserts the case is allowable over prior arts. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-11, 13, 15 under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn.
Upon further review of the claim language, the claims 1-11, 13-15 are rejected due to 35 USC 112(b) concerns.
See below for Claim Rejection under 35 USC 112(b) for details.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 line 2 recites “the modified communication parameter” may read “the modified at least one communication parameter”.
Similarly claim 8 line 2.
Appropriate correction is suggested.
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 1-11, 13-15 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.
Claim 1 line 12, lines 13-14, recite “said set of requests”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to recite “said set of disconnection requests” instead.
Claim 1 lines 17-18 recites “the previously transmitted protection process for …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to recite, “the protection process transmitted previously in the encrypted message for …”, or more appropriate form.
The above concerns for claim 1 also apply to claims 13-15.
Claims 2-11 depend on claim 1, therefore are also rejected for the same reason set forth above.
In addition,
for claims 2 line 2, “the requests”, “the set of requests”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim;
Similarly, for:
claim 3 lines 2, “the requests”, “the set of requests”, line 5, “said set of requests”;
claim 4 line 2, “the requests”, “the set of requests”;
claim 5 line 2, “the requests”, “the set of requests”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11, 13-15 are objected to as being allowable subject matter over prior arts but would be allowable if rewritten in form resolving of the identified issues of informalities and concerns under 35 USC 112(b) presented in this office action.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 (similarly claim 13-15) recites unique features of “transmit, from first entity to a second entity, an encrypted message including a protection process to be executed in case of a malicious disconnection attempt; receive, after a connection has been established between said first and second entities, a set of disconnection requests; evaluate at least one criterion defined from a metric based on said set of requests or on at least one other disconnection request received after the receipt of said set of requests, the at least one criterion indicating whether a malicious disconnection attempt is detected; and execute, in response to the at least one criterion being met, the previously transmitted protection process to maintain the connection between the first and second entities”, in combination with all other limitations in the claims as defined by applicant.
The prior arts identified, Manjunath, Usuba, Gupta, Van Antwerp, Shen, Bailey, either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations of claim 1, 13-15 shown above. Claims 2-11 depend on claim 1 and further limit the claim, therefore are also allowable subject matters.
Citation of References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are cited but not been replied upon for this office action:
Ma et al ("Protecting satellite networks from disassociation DoS attacks," 2010 IEEE International Conference on Communication Systems, Singapore, 2010, pp. 662-666) discloses solutions to detect and defense against disassociation DoS attacks in satellite networks.
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 M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1975. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached on (571) 272-4219. 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 M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436