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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 4/28/26. These drawings are acceptable.
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)(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 1-7 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dunn et al. (2019/0349747).
With regard to claim 1, Dunn teaches, as shown in figures 1-2 and taught in paragraph 28: “A plug connector housing 200 for electronic data lines (taught in paragraph 28), comprising: a data diode 140 integrated into the plug connector housing 200 and configured to be connected to said data lines”.
With regard to claim 2, Dunn teaches: “The plug connector housing as claimed in claim 1”, as shown above.
Dunn also teaches, as shown in figures 1-2 and taught in paragraph 28 and 45-46: “wherein the data diode 140 has a plurality of parallel communication channels (paragraph 28 teaches multiple one-way communication sources and destinations handled by the diode at once) and, in at least one of these communication channels, only permits a flow of data in one direction”.
With regard to claim 3, Dunn teaches: “The plug connector housing as claimed in claim 2”, as shown above.
Dunn also teaches, as shown in figures 1-2 and taught in paragraphs 28 and 45-46: “wherein the data diode contains a plurality of individual diodes (taught in paragraphs 45-46) in the plurality of communication channels (paragraphs 45-46 teach multiple one-way communication sources and destinations handled by the diode at once) and the forward directions of the individual diodes 140 are configured or able to be configured independently of one another (paragraph 46 teaches the diodes being configurable as desired)”.
With regard to claim 4, Dunn teaches: “The plug connector housing as claimed in claim 1”, as shown above.
Dunn also teaches, as shown in figures 1-2 and taught in paragraphs 28 and 45-46: “wherein the data diode 140 is a hard data diode, the hardware configuration of which defines the forward direction of the diode 140”.
With regard to claim 5, Dunn teaches: “The plug connector housing as claimed in claim 1”, as shown above.
Dunn also teaches, as shown in figures 1-2 and taught in paragraphs 28 and 42: “wherein the data diode 140 is a soft data diode, in which the forward direction is defined by the configuration of the diode software (paragraph 42 teaches software programming used to configure the diode)”.
With regard to claim 6, Dunn teaches: “The plug connector housing as claimed in claim 1”, as shown above.
Dunn also teaches, as shown in figures 1-2 and taught in paragraph 41: “wherein the data diode 140 is designed to emulate bidirectional communication according to a predetermined protocol”.
With regard to claim 7, Dunn teaches: “The plug connector housing as claimed in claim 1”, as shown above.
Dunn also teaches, as shown in figures 1-2 and taught in paragraph 39: “wherein the data diode 140 has a configuration interface for receiving configuration commands (paragraph 39 teaches the diode being configurable through an input device), wherein the data diode 140 is configurable for different operating modes”.
With regard to claim 9, Dunn teaches: “The plug connector housing as claimed in claim 7”, as shown above.
Dunn also teaches, as shown in figures 1-2 and taught in paragraph 37: “wherein the operating modes of the data diode 140 comprise an inactive mode (taught in paragraph 37, where connectors 290 and 240 are not processed) in which bidirectional communication is permitted”.
With regard to claim 10, Dunn teaches: “The plug connector housing as claimed in claim 7”, as shown above.
Dunn also teaches, as shown in figures 1-2 and taught in paragraphs 45 and 46: “wherein the operating modes differ in the forward direction of the data diode 140 in at least one communication channel (paragraphs 45-46 teach the different paths configured for different operations)”.
With regard to claim 11, Dunn teaches: “The plug connector housing as claimed in claim 6”, as shown above.
Dunn also teaches, as shown in figures 1-2 and taught in paragraphs 41-42: “wherein the operating modes differ in protocol specifications on the basis of which the bidirectional communication is emulated”.
With regard to claim 12, Dunn teaches: “The plug connector housing as claimed in claim 11, as shown above.
Dunn also teaches, as shown in figures 1-2 and taught in paragraph 41: “wherein learning software (detection software taught in paragraph 41), which is configured to learn emulation algorithms for emulating bidirectional communication when the data diode 140 is active through observation of real bidirectional communication, is implemented in the data diode 140”.
With regard to claim 13, Dunn teaches: “A plug connector 140 having a plug connector housing 200 as claimed in claim 1”, as shown in figures 1-2 and described above.
With regard to claim 14, Dunn teaches: “…a plug connector housing as claimed in claim 1”, as shown above.
Dunn also teaches, as shown in figures 1-2: “A plug connector system (shown in figure 1) having at least two mutually complementary plug connectors (110 and 140), at least one 140 of which has a plug connector housing as claimed in claim 1”.
With regard to claim 15, Dunn teaches: “The plug connector system as claimed in claim 14”, as shown above.
Dunn also teaches, as shown in figures 1-2 and taught in paragraph 41: “wherein at least one coupling, the housing 200 of which contains the data diode 140 and is able to be used in two opposite orientations between two plug connectors 110 and 120, wherein the opposite orientations determine the respective forward direction of the data diode 140 (flipping 140 in the left-right direction would connect 110 and 120 to opposite sides, the connectors would then be identified to connect in the opposite directions as described in paragraph 41)”.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn et al. (2019/0349747) in view of Gifre et al. (Castor, 2018).
With regard to claim 8, Dunn teaches: “The plug connector housing as claimed in claim 1”, as shown above.
Dunn does not teach: “wherein the data diode contains a key file with a key to decrypt encrypted configuration commands”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Gifre teaches, as taught on page 3 lines 18-42, the use of key files to decrypt encrypted configuration commands. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use combine the key file of Gifre with the data diode of Dunn in order to ensure data privacy (Gifre, page 3 lines 18-42).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to claim 1, the Applicant argues that the cited reference does not teach “a data diode integrated into the plug connector housing and is configured to be connected to said data lines”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, since the reference teaches a housing having data lines and a diode connected to the data lines. The language of the claim does not include limitations requiring more than a housing with data lines connected to a diode and the cited structures meet these limitations.
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 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 JUSTIN M KRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-0277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Abdullah A Riyami can be reached at (571)270-3119. 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.
/JUSTIN M KRATT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights