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 Amendment
This is a reply to the request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on 01/28/2026, in which Claim(s) 1-7, 9-16, and 20-24 are presented for examination. Claim(s) 1-7, 9-16, 20, 22, and 23 are amended. Claim(s) 8 and 17-19 are cancelled. Claim(s) 24 is newly added.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Argument
Double Patenting Rejection:
Applicant’s remarks regarding double patenting rejection have been acknowledged (see page 11 of the Remarks, “Applicant presently intends to file a terminal disclaimer with respect to US Pat. No. 11,973,805 when all other rejections have been overcome”).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims rejected under prior art have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 11 recites “A system” in the preamble, “one or more processors”, in the claim body. As recited in the body of the claim, the claimed system lacks a structural component because the processor can be implemented as software only. Therefore, claim 11 is directed to non-statutory subject matter for lack of a hardware component. The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claim be further amended to positively recite at least one hardware element within the body of the claim to make the claim statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 such as “one or more hardware processors”.
Claims 12-16 don't cure the deficiency of claim 11. Therefore, claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for their dependency upon Claim 11.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 20-24 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over:
Claims 1-20 of Patent 11,973,805.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-7, 9-16, and 20-24 are anticipated by claims 1-20 of Patent 11,973,805.
Patent No. 11,973,805 (17/459,896)
Instant Application No. (18/605,425)
Claim 1. A method, comprising:
receiving specifications of digital certificate validation security policies for a server within an intranet environment, where a first one of the digital certificate validation security policies is specified to be applied for a network connection within the intranet environment and a second one of the digital certificate validation security policies is specified to be applied for a network connection to a destination outside the intranet environment, and each of the first and second digital certificate validation security policies includes a plurality of different configurable individual settings to enable or disable corresponding individual components of a plurality of different component digital certificate validation checks including a first individually configurable setting included in the plurality of different configurable individual settings to enable or disable a hostname validation check and a second individually configurable setting included in the plurality of different configurable individual settings to enable or disable a certificate chain validation check; determining to establish a connection with a network destination;
receiving a digital certificate from the network destination;
identifying at least one of the digital certificate validation security policies to apply for the connection;
for each of the plurality of different component digital certificate validation checks, determining based on the identified digital certificate validation security policy for the connection whether to perform the component digital certificate validation check for the received digital certificate; and
performing any of the plurality of different component digital certificate validation checks determined to be performed.
Claim 1. A method, comprising:
receiving, from a remote application service, respective specifications of first and second digital certificate validation security policies, wherein each of the first and second digital certificate validation security policies includes a plurality of individually configurable settings to perform corresponding component digital certificate validation checks;
receiving, from the remote application service, an update to the respective specification of the first digital certificate validation security policy;
applying the update to the first digital certificate validation security policy;
receiving a digital certificate;
selecting, based on the digital certificate, the first digital certificate validation security policy as updated from among the first digital certificate validation security policy as updated or the second digital certificate validation security policy; and
performing, using the first digital certificate validation security policy as updated, the corresponding component digital certificate validation checks of the first digital certificate validation security policy as updated.
21. The method of claim 1, wherein the first digital certificate validation security policy is associated with a network connection within a network environment, and wherein the second digital certificate validation security policy is associated with a network connection to a destination outside the network environment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG-FENG HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Eleni A Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-3867. 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.
/CHENG-FENG HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497