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
Response to Amendment
This is a reply to the request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on 3/26/2026, in which Claim(s) 1-20 are presented for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Argument
Double Patenting Rejection:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Double Patenting Rejection of claim(s) 1-20 have been considered; however, is found not persuasives. As the claim is merely reciting “obtaining a first ciphertext data stream” and “sending the first ciphertext data stream”. The comprising of the data stream is not part of the inventive concept as it currently stands.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-20 of copending Application No.: 18/326340. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the underlined differences are obvious variations of the same invention (i.e. see table below).
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Present Invention
Copending Application No.: 18/326340
Claim 1: a method comprising:
obtaining a first ciphertext data stream comprising a first alignment marker (AM) and an encrypted first data segment,
wherein the first AM is for first data alignment of the first ciphertext data stream; and
comprises at least one of a first AM lock information field, a first lane identification information field, or a first check information field, and wherein at least one of first bits in the first AM lock information field, second bits in the first lane identification information field, or third bits in the first check information field carry encryption parameter information used for encrypting a first data segment to obtain the encrypted first data segment, such that the at least one of the first bits, the second bits, or the third bits identifies the encryption parameter information; and
sending the first ciphertext data stream.
Claim 1: A data transmission method, wherein the method comprises:
generating N ciphertext data streams, wherein a first ciphertext data stream is any ciphertext data stream in the N ciphertext data streams, the first ciphertext data stream comprises at least two first alignment markers (AMs) and at least two ciphertext data segments, one ciphertext data segment is comprised between every two first AMs, one first AM is comprised between every two ciphertext data segments, the at least two first AMs are used for aligning data of the N ciphertext data streams, some or all of the first AMs in the at least two first AMs indicate encryption parameters of the at least two ciphertext data segments, the encryption parameter carried in the first AM set comprises an initialization vector (IV) or a key identification, and N is a positive integer; and
sending the N ciphertext data streams.
Similarly, the rest of the independent and dependent claims are analogous to the rest of the independent and dependent claims of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-20 of copending Application No.: 18/326283. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the underlined differences are obvious variations of the same invention (i.e. see table below).
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Present Invention
Copending Application No.: 18/326283
Claim 1: a method comprising:
obtaining a first ciphertext data stream comprising a first alignment marker (AM) and an encrypted first data segment, wherein the first AM is for first data alignment of the first ciphertext data stream; and
comprises at least one of a first AM lock information field, a first lane identification information field, or a first check information field, and wherein at least one of first bits in the first AM lock information field, second bits in the first lane identification information field, or third bits in the first check information field carry encryption parameter information used for encrypting a first data segment to obtain the encrypted first data segment, such that the at least one of the first bits, the second bits, or the third bits identifies the encryption parameter information; and
sending the first ciphertext data stream.
Claim 1: A data transmission method, comprising:
generating N ciphertext data flows, wherein a first ciphertext data flow is one of the N ciphertext data flows, the first ciphertext data flow comprises at least two first alignment markers (AMs), at least two encryption parameter sets, and at least two ciphertext data segments, one ciphertext data segment and one encryption parameter set are comprised between every two first AMs, the at least two first AMs are used for data alignment of the N ciphertext data flows, and N is a positive integer; and
sending the N ciphertext data flows
Similarly, the rest of the independent and dependent claims are analogous to the rest of the independent and dependent claims of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims reciting “the encryption parameter information are located in specific bit locations within the first AM without occupying user service bandwidth”. This limitation contains new matter.
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.
Claims 1-20 reciting “the encryption parameter information are located in specific bit locations within the first AM without occupying user service bandwidth”. It is basic network that all data in a package send, would require bandwidth, regardless large or small data. It is unclear how this parameter information send would not occupy bandwidth.
Claims 1-7 and 15-20 reciting “obtaining of a first ciphertext data stream” and “sending the first ciphertext data stream”. The limitation merely reciting receiving of data and sending the data. It is unclear what is the inventive concept which The Applicant is trying to claimed.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http:ljwww.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kuwabara et al. (US 20060222178 A1) discloses an encrypted data communication system for communicating an encrypted stream as an encrypted data stream from a device at transmitting end to a device at receiving end to suppress the effect of an erroneous detection of a dummy code is disclosed. A device at transmitting end generates a data stream having the bit sequence of a marker for determination, a synchronization marker and a location identification code after the data, encrypts the bit sequence of the data and the marker for determination and transmits the encrypted stream. A device at receiving end receives the encrypted stream, detects the bit sequence of the synchronization marker and the location identification code and decrypts the encrypted stream. In the case where the bit sequence of the data and the marker for determination is decrypted, the detection of the valid bit sequence is determined, while the detection of a dummy bit sequence is determined otherwise.
Loprieno et al. (US 20190215188 A1) discloses a method generates, from an input data stream, multiple lanes of a physical coding sublayer (PCS) signal. The method converts the data stream to a sequence of bit blocks, and periodically inserts into the sequence of bit blocks an alignment marker (AM) group including multiple individual alignment markers for respective ones of the multiple lanes. The method adds security protection to each bit block according to a security protocol to produce a sequence of protected bit blocks, and modifies each AM group with security information to be used by the security protocol to remove the security protection added to the sequence of protected bit blocks. The method applies forward error correction to the sequence of protected bit blocks and the modified AM groups to produce forward error correction codewords, and produces the multiple lanes from the codewords. The method transmits the multiple lanes over an optical link.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAO Q HO whose telephone number is (571)270-5998. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached on (469) 295-9235. 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.
/DAO Q HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights