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 .
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 recite “the signalling connection between the connection server and the second device” and “the signalling connection between the connection server and the client application and the second device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Claims 1-20 recite “establishing a peer-to-peer connection between the client application on the first device and a second device”. It is unclear whether this refers to the previously recited “second device”.
Claims 1-10 recite “using the signally connection” (assumed to be “the signalling connection” as explained above). Claims 11-20 similarly recite “using the signalling connection There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the signalling connection” without additional qualifiers in the claims, therefore, it follows that it is unclear which previously recited “signalling connection” is being referred to.
Claims 7 and 17 recite “the second device is connected to signalling connection”. It is unclear which “signalling connection” is being referred to.
Claims 8 and 18 recite “the signalling connection”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Examiner will apply prior art as best understood.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20220376933 A1 to Guabtni et al. (“Guabtni”).
Regarding claim 1, Guabtni taught a computer-implemented method including:
receiving, at a client application executing on a first device, a request to upload a content item to a server system (“user input such as the click of a webpage button, or a URL”); establishing a peer-to-peer connection (“persistent peer-to-peer connection”) between the client application on the first device and a second device (“cryptographic device”); (consider paragraph 0083-0085 regarding “establishing a persistent peer-to-peer connection” with “a “cryptographic device”) (consider further generally paragraphs 0130-0136 regarding the “uploading” of “files” wherein “The user 802, as Author A, selects a file to be uploaded and clicks on the “Upload signed file” button 830. The browser transmits a request message, which includes a file reference and a request for the creation of a file signature, to the cryptographic device 106 via the peer-to-peer connection 108.”)
establishing a signalling connection between a connection server and the client application on the first device; establishing the signalling connection between the connection server and the second device; upon determining that the signalling connection between the connection server and the client application and the second device was successful, establishing the peer-to-peer connection between the client application and the second device using the signalling connection; (consider paragraph 0057, “The user 102 uses the browser to download a webpage 105 of a website from the web server 112. The user may log into the website 105 using the same user identification information used to create an account for the cryptographic application. Accordingly, the user may be logged into both the website and the cryptographic application on the cryptographic device”) (consider further paragraphs 0062 and 0064-0066 regarding “signalling” “processes”/”methods”, specifically that “To establish a peer-to-peer connection between one internet connected application and another internet connected application, to the participants perform a signalling process, whereby identifying and locating information is exchanged between the peer applications. Signalling allows the applications to exchange metadata to coordinate communication…Signalling information may be sent from a first peer to a second peer ‘out of band’, meaning that the signalling information is transmitted via a communication means that is not the channel over which the peer-to-peer connection will be established”) (consider further paragraph 0070, “In step 304, in response to receiving an input trigger from the user, such a mouse click on a webpage button or URL, the browser displays a QR code which encodes signalling information to initiate the establishment of a persistent peer-to-peer connection between the browser 105 and the cryptographic device 106.”) (consider further paragraph 0072-0073, “In some applications, it may be desirable to authenticate, during establishment of the persistent peer-to-peer connection, that the cryptographic device is appropriately associated with user identity used to log into the browser. In other applications, this authentication process may not be needed or desired; for example, if the webpage allows connections as a guest, or where the user's identity has been otherwise authenticated. In the embodiment illustrated in FIGS. 3 and 4, the browser requires the authentication of the cryptographic device in relation to the user's logged in identity. Accordingly, the signalling information provided in the QR code, in step 304, also includes authentication challenge data, which will be used to authenticate that the cryptographic device is associated with the user identity used to log in to the browser.”) (consider further paragraph 0078, “In step 308, the browser extracts the signed authentication challenge data from the signalling response message received from the cryptographic device, and provides the signed authentication challenge data to the web server 112.”)
transferring from the second device to the client application on the first device, the content item, the content item transferred via the peer-to-peer connection; (consider further paragraph 0131, “The cryptographic device 108 locates and retrieves the file from memory source 212, and applies the public key of communication partner 120 to the file contents to calculate a file signature. The cryptographic device transmits the file and its associated signature, as a cryptographic result, to the browser, in a response message, via the peer-to-peer connection.”) and
uploading the content item from the client application to the server system using a different communication channel between the first device and the server system (“internet connection”). (consider further paragraph 0132, “The browser then provides the cryptographic result to the webpage. Depending upon the configuration of the webpage, the browser may then upload the file and its associated signature to a web server, and may provide an indication of the uploaded file upon the webpage.”) (consider also paragraph 0034, “The web browser 105 is also in communication with a web server 112 via an internet connection 110, such that the web browser is able to download and display webpages from web server 112 via internet connection 110.”)
Regarding claim 2, Guabtni taught the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further including:
upon determining that the peer-to-peer connection between the client application and the second device was successful, terminating the signalling connection between the connection server and the client application and the second device. (consider paragraph 0066, “An initiating peer may transmit signalling information to a responding peer through other ‘out of band’ mechanisms including, but not limited to, SMS, email, Near Field Communications, Bluetooth, hardwired connection, manual input or via USB”) (it may be reasonably inferred that an “out of band” connection such as the taught “signalling connection” may be at least generically “terminated” in the manner as provided in the taught “out of band mechanisms”)
Regarding claim 3, Guabtni taught the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein establishing the signalling connection between the client application on the first device and the second device comprising:
generating and communicating a request for the signalling connection from the first device to the connection server. (again, consider paragraph 0064, “One method of implementing a peer-to-peer connection is to provide signalling information via a server”)
Regarding claim 4, Guabtni taught the computer-implemented method of claim 3, further comprising:
receiving a session identifier from the connection server in response to the connection server establishing the signalling connection between the connection server and the client application on the first device. (consider further paragraph 0072, “In some applications, it may be desirable to authenticate, during establishment of the persistent peer-to-peer connection, that the cryptographic device is appropriately associated with user identity used to log into the browser”) (consider further paragraph 0073, specifically “Accordingly, the signalling information provided in the QR code, in step 304, also includes authentication challenge data, which will be used to authenticate that the cryptographic device is associated with the user identity used to log in to the browser.”)
Regarding claim 5, Guabtni taught the computer-implemented method of claim 4, further comprising:
generating a machine readable code, the machine readable code comprising the session identifier; and displaying, by the first device, the machine readable code. (consider paragraph 0014, “The signalling information may be signalled ‘out of band’, for example via a Quick Response (QR) code displayed within the browser.”)
Regarding claim 9, Guabtni taught the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein after establishing the peer-to-peer connection between the first and second device, displaying on at least the first device or the second device an interactive control to disconnect the peer-to-peer connection. (consider further paragraph 0101, “Eventually, the browser may determine that the services of the cryptographic device are no longer required, for example, if the user logs out of the webpage, or takes action to sever the persistent peer-to-peer connection. The browser may then take steps to close the persistent peer-to-peer connection, thus freeing up resources associated with the connection. If the peer-to-peer connection is a WebRTC connection, the connection maybe closed by invoking the RTCPeerConnection.close( ) method, which terminates agents associated with the WebRTC connection. A close message 718 may be transmitted, which triggers the cryptographic device to close the connection, and to cease listening for further request messages via the connection”) (consider also paragraph 0085 regarding “user input”)
Regarding claim 10, Guabtni taught the computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein in response to determining that the interactive control has been selected, disconnecting the second device from the first device. (again, consider further paragraph 0101, “Eventually, the browser may determine that the services of the cryptographic device are no longer required, for example, if the user logs out of the webpage, or takes action to sever the persistent peer-to-peer connection. The browser may then take steps to close the persistent peer-to-peer connection, thus freeing up resources associated with the connection. If the peer-to-peer connection is a WebRTC connection, the connection maybe closed by invoking the RTCPeerConnection.close( ) method, which terminates agents associated with the WebRTC connection. A close message 718 may be transmitted, which triggers the cryptographic device to close the connection, and to cease listening for further request messages via the connection”)
Claim(s) 11-15 and 19-20 recite a non-transitory computer readable medium that contain substantially the same limitations as recited in claim(s) 1-5 and 9-10 respectively and are also rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the same teachings of Guabtni.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guabtni.
Regarding claim 6, Guabtni taught the computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein establishing the signalling connection between the second device and the connection server comprises:
scanning and decrypting, by the second device, the machine readable code displayed by the first device to obtain the session identifier; and automatically generating and communicating, by the second device, a signalling connection request, the signalling connection request comprising the session identifier. (consider further paragraphs 0073-0074, specifically “Accordingly, the signalling information provided in the QR code, in step 304, also includes authentication challenge data, which will be used to authenticate that the cryptographic device is associated with the user identity used to log in to the browser…In step 408, the cryptographic application determines the authentication challenge data from the QR code, and in step 410, the cryptographic device calculates a signature of the challenge data using an authentication key stored on the cryptographic device, to produce signed authentication challenge data.”) (consider further paragraphs 0075-0076, specifically “ In step 412, the cryptographic application prepares a signalling response message…the signalling response message also includes the signed authentication challenge data. The cryptographic application then transmits 412 the signalling response message…”)
Guabtni may be interpreted as not expressly teaching wherein the signalling connection request comprising the session identifier to the connection server is sent from the second device.
However, Guabtni taught that a signalling connection may be established with the connection server and the client application on the first device and also the second device. (consider paragraph 0057, “The user 102 uses the browser to download a webpage 105 of a website from the web server 112. The user may log into the website 105 using the same user identification information used to create an account for the cryptographic application. Accordingly, the user may be logged into both the website and the cryptographic application on the cryptographic device”)
Guabtni also taught signalling connection requests are communicated to the connection server. (again, consider paragraph 0064, “One method of implementing a peer-to-peer connection is to provide signalling information via a server”)
Guabtni also taught that the second device automatically generates and communicates the signalling connection request comprising the session identifier which is then sent to the connection server. (consider paragraphs 0076-0078, specifically “The cryptographic application then transmits 412 the signalling response message, via the internet, to the browser at the IP address and port specified in the QR code…In step 306, the browser receives the signalling response message from the cryptographic device…In step 308, the browser extracts the signed authentication challenge data from the signalling response message received from the cryptographic device, and provides the signed authentication challenge data to the web server 112.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Guabtni such that the signalling connection request comprising the session identifier to the connection server is sent from the second device. Given Guabtni’s teachings referenced above, they would have reasonably led one skilled in the art to modify the teachings of Guabtni to have the signalling connection request comprising the session identifier to the connection service from the second device as Guabtni taught that the signalling connection established with the connection server on the second device and that the request is communicated to the connection server. Therefore, such a modification of the teachings of Guabtni would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Guabtni taught the computer-implemented method of claim 6, further comprising:
receiving, at the first device, a confirmation from the connection server that the second device is connected to signalling connection; and initiating, by the first device, the peer-to-peer connection with the second device using the signalling connection. (again, consider paragraph 0057, “The user 102 uses the browser to download a webpage 105 of a website from the web server 112. The user may log into the website 105 using the same user identification information used to create an account for the cryptographic application. Accordingly, the user may be logged into both the website and the cryptographic application on the cryptographic device”) (consider further paragraph 0080, “Otherwise, the browser considers that the user's identity has been authenticated, and the browser 105 proceeds with negotiating session parameters 312, 414 with the cryptographic device 106 over the persistent peer-to-peer connection 108.”)
Claim(s) 6-7 recite a non-transitory computer readable medium that contain substantially the same limitations as recited in claim(s) 16-17 respectively and are also rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over the same combined teachings of Guabtni and the same rationale supporting the conclusion of obviousness.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guabtni in view of “RFC 8863: Interactive Connectivity Establishment Patiently Awaiting Connectivity (ICE PAC)” to Holmberg et al. (“Holmberg”).
Regarding claim 8. Guabtni taught the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Guabtni may be interpreted as not expressly teaching wherein the signalling connection is ended after a threshold period of time if the peer-to-peer connection is not established within the threshold period of time.
In an analogous art relating to peer-to-peer connection establishment, Holmberg taught that a signalling connection for a peer-to-peer connection may end after a threshold period of time if the connection is not established within the threshold period of time in order to avoid false terminations of connection establishment. (consider section 1, “Introduction”, “When using ICE, endpoints will typically exchange ICE candidates, form a list of candidate pairs, and then test each candidate pair to see if connectivity can be established. If the test for a given pair fails, it is marked accordingly, and if all pairs have failed, the overall ICE process typically is considered to have failed… Such candidates are referred to as peer-reflexive candidates; once discovered, these candidates will be used to form new candidate pairs, which will be tested like any other. However, there is an inherent problem here; if, before learning about any peer-reflexive candidates, an endpoint runs out of candidate pairs to check, either because it has none or it considers them all to have failed, it will prematurely declare failure and terminate ICE processing… This specification updates [RFC8445] and [RFC8838] by simply requiring that an ICE agent wait a minimum amount of time before declaring ICE failure, even if there are no candidate pairs to check or all candidate pairs have failed. This delay provides enough time for the discovery of peer-reflexive candidates, which may eventually lead to ICE processing completing successfully.”) (consider further section 4. “Update to RFC 8445”, specifically “In order to avoid the problem raised by this document, the ICE agent needs to wait enough time to allow peer-reflexive candidates to be discovered. Accordingly, when a full ICE implementation begins its ICE processing, as described in [RFC8445], Section 6.1, it MUST set a timer, henceforth known as the "PAC timer" (Patiently Awaiting Connectivity), to ensure that ICE will run for a minimum amount of time before determining failure.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of these references such that their combination includes every element as claimed. One skilled in the art could have combined the teachings by known methods such as integration of software routines with no changes to the operation of either reference such that, in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Additionally, the Examiner finds that, based on the references’ analogous disclosure regarding peer-to-peer connection establishment, further demonstrates that a combination of their features would have been known and obvious. Therefore, such a combination of the teachings of the references would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 8 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium that contains substantially the same limitations as recited in claim 18 and is also rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over the same combined teachings of Guabtni and the same rationale supporting the conclusion of obviousness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the instant response have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Examiner highlights the following aspects of the claimed invention which, as shown above, continue to be unclear under 35 USC § 112(b).
For instance, Applicant argues that:
“As amended, claim 1 now requires three specific elements that Guabtni neither discloses nor suggests:
A signalling connection between a connection server and the first device (client application); and
A signalling connection between the connection server and the second device; and
Using that signalling connection to establish the peer-to-peer connection”.
Applicant’s argument appears to state that there are two separate “signalling connections” and then states that “that signalling connection” is used to “establish the peer-to-peer connection”.
Despite the fact that this statement fails to clearly state which connection actually establishes “the peer-to-peer connection”, it only highlights the issues raised by Examiner in the previous action which significantly impact the claims’ scope.
Also, Applicant argues that the issues raised were resolved “by moving the full signally-connection framework into independent claims 1 and 11” such that “the amendments” “1. Provide explicit antecedent basis for "a signalling connection" and unambiguously define it as the connection "between a connection server and the client application on the first device" and "between the connection server and the second device." 2. Clarify that subsequent references in the dependent claims (e.g., "the signalling connection") refer to the expressly established signalling connection.”
However, upon further inspection, these arguments fail to consider the claims as recited.
Claims 1-20 recite “establishing a signalling connection between a connection server and the client application on the first device” and “establishing the signalling connection between the connection server and the second device”. There is no previous recitation of “the signalling connection between the connection server and the second device”, therefore, this renders the claims’ scope unclear, prompting this issue under 35 USC § 112(b).
The claims then further recite “upon determining that the signalling connection between the connection server and the client application and the second device was successful”. As also stated previously, this “signalling connection” does not have antecedent basis, which means that, as best understood by Examiner, it does not refer to either of the “signalling connections” previously recited, also prompting a separate issue under § 112(b). This leads to a possible interpretation that it could be a “signalling connection” separate from the two previously referred to, establishing a third “signalling connection” “between the connection server and the client application and the second device”.
Also, Applicant has chosen not to amend claims 7-8 and 17-18 which also have similar clarity issues with regard to these “signalling connections” which was also raised in the previous action.
These issues persist, new issues have arisen, all rendering the claims unclear, and materially affect the interpretation applied to the claims and appear to affect Applicant’s arguments. Therefore, Examiner will proceed to respond to the instant arguments as best understood as they apply to Guabtni.
Applicant argues that “Guabtni's disclosure teaches a fundamentally different architecture: an out-of-band, direct exchange of signalling metadata between peers, with no connection server in the signalling path” since “In particular, Guabtni's "Signalling" and "Signalling Methods" expressly describe exchanging identifying/locating/session control/configuration data between peer applications and emphasize out-of-band. peer-to-peer mechanisms” and teaches away from such a “server solution” by “provid[ing] a signalling mechanism that does not necessitate the use of a server, to establish a peer-to-peer connection” and “No connection server mediates, maintains, or relays this signalling channel” which Applicant characterizes as being “dedicated” “to establish and maintain signalling connections with each peer device, to use that server-mediated signalling to bootstrap P2P”. (Applicant’s emphasis added.)
Applicant’s argument regarding that the “connection server” be “dedicated” “to establish and maintain signalling connections with each peer device, to use that server-mediated signalling to bootstrap P2P” is acknowledged, however, Examiner submits that the claims do not require such details. The claims only require that the as claimed “signalling connections” be “established” between the claimed elements and also in a generic manner such that the “success” of such is later “determined” to cause “establishment” of the “peer-to-peer connection”.
Following Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed invention as it applied to Guabtni, if the claims are to establish “the” “signalling connection between the connection server and the second device” which is required to be previously established “between a connection server and the client application on the first device”, then it follows that, as shown, Guabtni uses the “cryptographic application” on the “cryptographic device” to “establish” “the” “signalling connection with “the client application on the first device” (ie. the “browser”) as taught in paragraph 0070 and then establish “the” “signalling connection” with “the second device” by continuing the establishment by using the added procedure of its function of “authenticat[ing], during establishment of the persistent peer-to-peer connection, that the cryptographic device is appropriately associated with user identity used to log into the browser” by using the “cryptographic application” as taught at paragraph 0072 et seq. This interpretation is meant to handle what the claims appear to require despite their clarity issues is that both “signalling connections” are established in concert with each other such the “connection server” claimed is connected to the “client application” and the “second device”.
Guabtni further taught at paragraph 0074 that “In step 408, the cryptographic application determines the authentication challenge data from the QR code, and in step 410, the cryptographic device calculates a signature of the challenge data using an authentication key stored on the cryptographic device, to produce signed authentication challenge data”. There are clearly two elements here, the “cryptographic application” on the “cryptographic device” and at least one separate element that at least performs the “calculating”. This functionality is interpreted by Examiner to be the continuation of such a “signalling connection” to “establish” the “peer-to-peer connection”, the “success of which” leads to “the cryptographic application prepares a signalling response message, which includes cryptographic device identification information” (paragraph 0075) and wherein “The cryptographic application then transmits 412 the signalling response message, via the internet, to the browser” (paragraph 0076).
Therefore, Examiner is unpersuaded that Guabtni fails to teach or suggest the invention as claimed in claims 1 and 11, again, as best understood.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the dependent claims are also affected by the interpretation required by the claims.
With regard to claim 2 (and presumably claim 12 as well), Applicant argues that “Guabtni's closing/tear-down discussion concerns closing the WebRTC peer connection itself (e.g., RTCPeerConnection.close(), not terminating any separate, server-mediated signalling connection after P2P establishment (Guabtni, 1 [0101]). That is, Guabtni fails to teach or suggest anything about terminating the signalling connection after P2P succeeds”.
However, the claim still recites “the signalling connection between the connection server and the client application and the second device”. Therefore, it is unclear as to which of the “signalling connection(s)” the “terminating” applies to. In any case, the examples provided in the rejection show a number of possible “signalling connections” other than Applicant’s pointing to of “WebRTC” which, again, in accordance with Applicant’s own definition of such, which are known in the art to be terminated. Given Guabtni’s teaching of sending the “signalling response message”, it may be reasonably inferred that the “signalling connection” terminates the connection upon completion. Again, it is emphasized that the claim only requires a generic “termination”, not anything more, to which the well-known operation of computer network protocols for data transmission apply and from which the inference is drawn. Therefore, given Guabtni’s broader disclosure, this rejection is maintained.
The same is applied to Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 3-5. It also recites “the signalling connection between the connection server and the client application and the second device”. In any case, the rejection shows that a “signalling connection” may occur through “a server” which, as noted above and in accordance with Guabtni’s teaching, could be any such “server”. Given its later teachings as also shown above and in accordance with those references already shown for claim 1, the “browser” within paragraph 0070 does “generate” and “communicate” a “request” (ie. the “signalling information”) to the “cryptographic device” in which the “cryptographic application”, in the embodiment also explained above, receives and processes.
Applicant’s argument that “Guabtni's QR code encodes endpoint network parameters (IP/port/transport) and optional page identification, not a server-allocated session identifier to be provided to a connection server and used to connect both devices into a common signalling session (Guabtni, " [0070]-[0076]). The cryptographic device's response in Guabtni goes directly to the browser's IP/port, not to a connection server” presumably applies to the rejection of claim 4. However, again, Examiner is left to interpret which actual “signalling connection” this applies to. The claim also fails to specify to what element and when this session identifier is received. At least the “email” “connection” known to use the SMTP protocol of the possible “signalling connections” taught by Guabtni above is known to establish data exchange sessions and exchanges at least a generic session identifier in order to effectuate the data transfer. Therefore, Examiner is unpersuaded by this argument.
Applicant’s further argument that “Guabtni goes directly to the browser's IP/port, not to a connection server. Likewise, Guabtni has no disclosure of receiving "a confirmation from the connection server that the second device is connected to the signalling connection" or of "initiating the using the signalling connection" from that server. The cited peer-to-peer connection authentication passage (Guabtni, 1 [0078]) routes signed challenge data to a web server for identity verification; it is not confirmation of signalling-session connectivity from a connection server, nor does it establish or mediate signalling” only highlights the point Examiner makes in this response, in that, there is a lack of clarity as to what “signalling connections” are being referred to here. Presumably, Applicant is referring to claim 7, which Examiner notes, requires the limitations from claims 1-6 in combination. Nevertheless, this statement by Applicant does establish that, in fact, an exchange between the browser and the cryptographic application of the cryptographic device is performed and the cryptographic application can involve the use of “blockchain ledgers” (paragraph 0005) in Guabtni external to the “browser” and “cryptographic application” which supports Examiner’s position regarding Guabtni’s teachings.
With regard to claims 6-7 and 16-17, Applicant argues that “There is no articulated rationale to modify Guabtni's explicit out-of-band, server-less signalling embodiment to introduce a connection server that allocates session IDs, maintains signalling connections with both peers, and provides connectivity confirmations, only to tear it down after P2P. Such a modification would fundamentally change Guabtni's architecture rather than being a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.”
However, Applicant’s argument fails as it fails to address the clarity issues Examiner has introduced. Again, claims 6-7 and 16-17 inherit the limitations of claims 1-5 and 11-15 in combination respectively and therefore inherit the clarity issues introduced in claims 1 and 11. Also, as explained above within claims 7 and 17, the recitation of “the second device is connected to signalling connection” is unclear. It also fails to consider the actual rationale that the rejection puts forth and why one skilled in the art would modify the teachings of Guabtni to arrive at the invention as claimed. The rest of Applicant’s arguments have largely been treated above in the instant response.
With regard to claims 8 and 18, Applicant argues that “Holmberg's PAC timer is an internal timing requirement on ICE agents during candidate gathering/checks; it does not disclose or suggest terminating a separate, server-mediated signalling connection between an intermediary connection server and the endpoints after a threshold time if P2P is not established”. However, Holmberg is clearly applicable here as it expressly relates to peer-to-peer connectivity establishment. Given Examiner’s explanations in the instant response, Examiner is unpersuaded that the teachings of Guabtni cannot be combined with the teachings of Holmberg to teach the ending of a signalling connection after a threshold period of time if the peer-to-peer connection is not established within the threshold period of time. Guabtni is deficient in teaching such, however, Holmberg reasonably fills these gaps in an analogous context of establishing peer-to-peer connections as explained in the rejection. Also, again, claims 8 and 18 have clarity issues surrounding their recitations of “the signalling connection” without qualifiers.
In conclusion, Examiner finds that Applicant has failed to treat the substantial clarity issues with claims 1-20, has introduced new clarity issues detailed above, and Applicant’s arguments fail to consider the clarity issues previously raised. Collectively, they materially affect the interpretations applicable to the claimed invention to which the teachings of Guabtni were applied. The arguments against are therefore found to be unpersuasive to remove the rejections of record for the reasons explained above.
Conclusion
An updated search revealed additional prior art that is considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or to the broader disclosure. The additional prior art relates to content sharing using peer-to-peer connections involving signalling connections related to the establishment of such.
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 G. C. Neurauter, Jr. whose telephone number is (571)272-3918. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern Time.
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, Tonia Dollinger, can be reached at 571-272-4170. 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.
/G. C. Neurauter, Jr./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459