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
This is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 03/17/2026 to Application #18/695,171 filed on 03/25/2024 in which Claims 39-64 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
Claims 39-64 are pending, of which Claims 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 63, 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102, Claims 43, 55, 50, 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, dependent Claims 45-49, 57-61 are objected to as being allowable as a whole over prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of their base independent claim and any intervening dependent claims.
Applicant’s Most Recent Claim Set of 03/17/2026
Applicant’s most recent claim set of 03/17/2026 is considered to be the latest claim set under consideration by the examiner.
Prior Art Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or 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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 63, 64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mynam et al US Patent Application Publication #2007/0160063.
Regarding Claim 39, Mynam et al discloses:
A method performed by a first node to manage rekeying of a security association (SA) between the first node and a second node in a communication network, the method comprising [(Mynam et al Par 40 Lines 4-7] where Mynam et al teaches a method performed by a node to switch or manage rekeying of transport security protocol keys utilized to secure communications between the node and another node in a communications network]:
sending to the second node a request indicating a rekey priority of the first node [(Mynam et al Par 40 Lines 4-9] where Mynam et al teaches the node sending to another node a request indicating that the switching or rekeying priority of the node is for the another node to accept subsequent messages that are digitally signed with either a first key or a second key];
receiving from the second node a response indicating a rekey priority of the second node [(Mynam et al Par 40 Lines 9-13] where Mynam et al teaches the node receiving from the another node a response indicating that the switching or rekeying priority of the another node is for the another node to send subsequent messages that are digitally signed with either the first key or the second key]; and
selectively initiating rekeying of the SA between the first node and the second node based on the request and the response [(Mynam et al Par 40 Lines 4-22] where Mynam et al teaches the switching or selectively initiating rekeying between the node and the another node to specify that messages exchanged between the two nodes are digitally signed with either (the first key or the second key) or the (second key alone)].
Regarding Claim 40, Mynam et al discloses:
The method of claim 39, wherein the request and the response include a message type field that can have any one of a plurality of different values, including a first message type value indicating that the sending node supports rekey priority [(Mynam et al Figure 2, Items 221, 228, 229A, 229B, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Par 27 Lines 1-3, Par 28 Lines 1-4] where Mynam et al teaches a message type field that indicates different types in the message, including a message type available indicating that the node sending the message supports switching or rekeying priority of encryption keys].
Regarding Claim 41, Mynam et al discloses:
The method of claim 40, wherein when the request includes a message type field that does not have the first message type value, the response also includes a message type field that does not have the first message type value [(Mynam et al Par 69 Lines 7-13] where Mynam et al teaches that when the request message does not have the message type value but instead has a padding value of zero in field 218, it indicates that the Extended MD5 Option of switching or rekeying priority of encryption keys is not to be supported, so the response back will also not have the message type value but instead have a padding value of zero in field 218].
Regarding Claim 42, Mynam et al discloses:
The method of claim 40, wherein when the request or the response includes a message type field having the first message type value, the request or the response also includes a rekey priority indicator that can have any one of a plurality of different values [(Mynam et al Par 69 Lines 1-7] where Mynam et al teaches that when the request message has the message type value indicating that the Extended MD5 Option of switching or rekeying priority of encryption keys is supported in field 218, the response back will have one of a plurality or multiple values of either a message type acknowledge value indicating that the Extended MD5 Option of switching or rekeying priority of encryption keys is supported or have a padding value of zero in field 218 to indicate that the Extended MD5 Option of switching or rekeying priority of encryption keys is to be ignored].
Regarding Claim 44, Mynam et al discloses:
The method of claim 42, wherein the plurality of different values of the rekey priority indicator include a plurality of first values that indicate a respective plurality of different rekey priorities configured in the sending node. [(Mynam et al Par 69 Lines 1-7] where Mynam et al teaches that when the request message has the message type value indicating that the Extended MD5 Option of switching or rekeying priority of encryption keys is supported in field 218, the response back will have one of a plurality or multiple values of either a message type acknowledge value indicating that the Extended MD5 Option of switching or rekeying priority of encryption keys is supported or have a padding value of zero in field 218 to indicate that the Extended MD5 Option of switching or rekeying priority of encryption keys is to be ignored, thereby including different switching or rekeying priorities in both the sending and receiving nodes of to rekey or not to rekey].
Regarding Claim 51:
It is a method claim corresponding to the method claim of claim 39, just described from the reverse side. Therefore, claim 51 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against claim 39 above.
Regarding Claim 52:
It is a method claim corresponding to the method claim of claim 40. Therefore, claim 52 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against claim 40 above.
Regarding Claim 53:
It is a method claim corresponding to the method claim of claim 41. Therefore, claim 53 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against claim 41 above.
Regarding Claim 54:
It is a method claim corresponding to the method claim of claim 42. Therefore, claim 54 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against claim 42 above.
Regarding Claim 56:
It is a method claim corresponding to the method claim of claim 44. Therefore, claim 56 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against claim 44 above.
Regarding Claim 63:
It is a system claim corresponding to the method claim of claim 39. Therefore, claim 63 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against claim 39 above. Plus the processing circuitry and the communication interface circuitry of Claim 63 are also taught by Mynam et al at [(Mynam et al Figure 4] where Mynam et al teaches the use of both processing circuitry (Item 404) and communication interface circuitry (Item 418)].
Regarding Claim 64:
It is a system claim corresponding to the method claim of claim 39, just described from the reverse side. Therefore, claim 64 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against claim 39 above. Plus, the processing circuitry and the communication interface circuitry of Claim 64 are also taught by Mynam et al at [(Mynam et al Figure 4] where Mynam et al teaches the use of both processing circuitry (Item 404) and communication interface circuitry (Item 418)].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
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) 43, 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mynam et al US Patent Application Publication #2007/0160063 and further in view of Bazzinotti et al US Patent #7,376,743.
Regarding Claim 43, Mynam et al discloses:
The method of claim 42, wherein:
when present, the message type field and the rekey priority indicator are included in a Notify message [(Mynam et al Par 69 Lines 1-7] where Mynam et al teaches that when the request message has the message type value indicating that the Extended MD5 Option of switching or rekeying priority of encryption keys is supported in field 218, the response back will have one of a plurality or multiple values of either a message type acknowledge value indicating that the Extended MD5 Option of switching or rekeying priority of encryption keys is supported or have a padding value of zero in field 218 to indicate that the Extended MD5 Option of switching or rekeying priority of encryption keys is to be ignored, thereby notifying in the request message that switching or rekeying priority of encryption keys is desired and notifying in the response message that switching or rekeying priority of encryption keys is accepted]; and
Mynam et al does not appear to explicitly disclose:
the Notify message is included in an encrypted payload of the request or the response
However, Bazzinotti et al discloses:
the Notify message is included in an encrypted payload of the request or the response [(Bazzinotti et al Column 14 Lines 12-17) where Bazzinotti et al teaches that an encrypted Internet Key Exchange Notify message is included within an encrypted Internet Key Exchange Notify request message’s encrypted payload].
Mynam et al and Bazzinotti et al are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are from the same “problem-solving area,”. Namely, they are all from the field of “information security”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Mynam et al and the teachings of Bazzinotti et al by providing that an encrypted Internet Key Exchange Notify message is included within an encrypted Internet Key Exchange Notify request message’s encrypted payload as taught by Bazzinotti et al in the teaching described by Mynam et al.
The motivation for doing so would be to increase the usability and flexibility of Mynam et al by providing that an encrypted Internet Key Exchange Notify message is included within an encrypted Internet Key Exchange Notify request message’s encrypted payload as taught by Bazzinotti et al in the teaching described by Mynam et al so as to provide Industry Standard security by encrypting Internet Key Exchange messages.
Regarding Claim 55:
It is a method claim corresponding to the method claim of claim 43. Therefore, claim 55 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against claim 43 above.
Claim(s) 50, 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mynam et al US Patent Application Publication #2007/0160063 and further in view of Chiu US Patent Application Publication #2009/0041006.
Regarding Claim 50, Mynam et al discloses:
The method of claim 39,
Mynam et al does not appear to explicitly disclose:
wherein the request and the response comprise one of the following: an IKE_INIT exchange, an IKE_AUTH exchange, or a CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange
However, Chiu discloses:
wherein the request and the response comprise one of the following: an IKE_INIT exchange, an IKE_AUTH exchange, or a CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange [(Chiu Abstract Lines 1-10) where Chiu teaches the use of Internet Key Exchange Protocol, including an Internet Key Exchange Initialization Request Message from a sender and a resulting Internet Key Response Message from a receiver].
Mynam et al and Chiu are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are from the same “problem-solving area,”. Namely, they are all from the field of “information security”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Mynam et al and the teachings of Chiu by providing the use of Internet Key Exchange Protocol, including an Internet Key Exchange Initialization Request Message from a sender and a resulting Internet Key Response Message from a receiver as taught by Chiu in the teaching described by Mynam et al.
The motivation for doing so would be to increase the usability and flexibility of Mynam et al by providing the use of Internet Key Exchange Protocol, including an Internet Key Exchange Initialization Request Message from a sender and a resulting Internet Key Response Message from a receiver as taught by Chiu in the teaching described by Mynam et al so as to provide an Industry Standard Key Exchange Protocol for communication over the internet.
Regarding Claim 62:
It is a method claim corresponding to the method claim of claim 50. Therefore, claim 62 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against claim 50 above.
Allowable Subject Matter – Dependent Claim(s)
Claims 45-49, 57-61 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable as a whole over prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of their base independent claim, and any intervening dependent claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The closest prior art, as recited, Mynam et al US Patent Application Publication #2007/0160063 and Chiu US Patent Application Publication #2009/0041006, are also generally directed to various aspects of providing rekeying between two nodes in a networked environment. However, Mynam et al or Chiu does not teach or suggest, either singularly or in combination, the particular combination of steps or elements as recited in the dependent Claims 45-49, 57-61 when also incorporating all of the limitations of their base independent claim and any intervening dependent claims. For example, none of the cited prior art teaches or suggests the steps of:
randomly selecting the rekey priority of the first node based on determining that rekeying is enabled but rekey priority is not configured in the first node, and the request includes one of the first values that indicates the randomly selected rekey priority of the first node, selectively initiating the rekeying of the SA includes, when the request and the response include respective rekey priority indicators with any of the first values, initiating the rekeying of the SA when the rekey priority of the first node is greater than or equal to the rekey priority of the second node, and refraining from initiating the rekeying of the SA when the rekey priority of the first node is less than the rekey priority of the second node, the plurality of different values of the rekey priority indicator include a second value that indicates rekeying is disabled in the sending node, and selectively initiating the rekeying of the SA comprises initiating the rekeying of the SA when a rekey priority indicator having the second value is present in the response and rekeying is enabled in the first node.
As recited in dependent Claims 45-49, 57-61 when also incorporating all of the limitations of their base independent claim, any intervening dependent claims, any additional limitations found in dependent Claims 45-49, 57-61 and with all applicable 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections satisfied.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/17/2026 have been fully considered but are not fully persuasive.
The Objections to the Claims are withdrawn.
On pages 10-13 of Applicant’s arguments, applicant argues that the following limitations are not taught in the currently applied prior art “indicating a rekey priority of the first node”, and “indicating a rekey priority of the second node”, as taught in Independent Claims 39, 63 and the reverse of these limitations taught in Independent Claims 51, 64.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Not only does the currently applied prior art for this limitation [(Mynam et al Par 40 Lines 4-9) where Mynam et al teaches the node sending to another node a request indicating that the switching or rekeying priority of the node is for the another node to accept subsequent messages that are digitally signed with either a first key or a second key] and [(Mynam et al Par 40 Lines 9-13) where Mynam et al teaches the node receiving from the another node a response indicating that the switching or rekeying priority of the another node is for the another node to send subsequent messages that are digitally signed with either the first key or the second key] clearly teach these claim limitations as written, the applicant’s broad wording of the terms presently used in the claims provides many ways that the examiner may interpret the claims One cannot assume that limitations in the specification automatically transfer to the claims at the whim of the applicant, the limitations from the specification that applicant wants in the claims have to physically be in the claims, before the examiner can limit his interpretation to those limitations. The examiner can understand where the applicant is coming from in his arguments, but until the desired limitations appear in the claims, the examiner is required to view the claims with the broadest reasonable interpretation, not the interpretation chosen by the applicant. No matter how logical that interpretation may appear to be to the applicant.
The applicant must bring these limitations from the specification that define how the applicant would like the claims interpreted into the claims, in order for the examiner to be able to both consider them and view them as relevant.
The applicant has numerous details in the specification that he can bring into the claims to overcome this prior art if he chooses to do so, as it is, the way the independent claims are presently broadly worded, the examiner could have actually taken Official Notice on the entire substance of the Independent Claims if the examiner had chosen to.
On pages 13-14 of Applicant’s arguments, applicant argues that the following limitations are not taught in the currently applied prior art “the request and the response include a message type field that can have any one of a plurality of different values, including a first message type value indicating that the sending node supports rekey priority”, as taught in Dependent Claims 40 and 52.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Not only does the currently applied prior art for this limitation [(Mynam et al Figure 2, Items 221, 228, 229A, 229B, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Par 27 Lines 1-3, Par 28 Lines 1-4] where Mynam et al teaches a message type field that indicates different types in the message, including a message type available indicating that the node sending the message supports switching or rekeying priority of encryption keys] clearly teach these claim limitations as written, the applicant’s broad wording of the terms used in the claims provides many ways that the examiner may interpret the claims One cannot assume that limitations in the specification automatically transfer to the claims at the whim of the applicant, the limitations from the specification that applicant wants in the claims have to physically be in the claims, before the examiner can limit his interpretation to those limitations. The examiner can understand where the applicant is coming from in his arguments, but until the desired limitations appear in the claims, the examiner is required to view the claims with the broadest reasonable interpretation, not the interpretation chosen by the applicant. No matter how logical that interpretation may appear to be to the applicant.
Applicant is encouraged to add more invention related detail to the Independent Claims as regards the invention claimed in the Instant Application, in order to move this set of claims to allowance.
On Pages 14-15 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues that since the independent Claims are allowable, the dependent Claims are allowable. The examiner disagrees, because at this time, the independent Claims are not as yet allowable.
Since 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections are maintained on Independent Claims 39, 51. 63, 64, with 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections also maintained on dependent Claims 40, 41, 42, 44, 52, 53, 54, 56, with 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections also maintained on dependent Claims 43, 55, 50, 62, and with dependent Claims 45-49, 57-61 objected to as being allowable as a whole over prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of their base independent claim and any intervening dependent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kruegel et al - US_20130243195: Kruegel et al teaches management of encrypted group rekeying in a radio network supporting link layer encryption (LLE) and/or decryption.
Sowa et al - US_8948378: Sowa et al teaches management of rekeying in a radio network supporting link layer encryption (LLE) and/or decryption.
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 BRADLEY HOLDER whose telephone number is 571-270-3789. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10:00AM-7:00PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Linglan Edwards, can be reached on (571) 270-5440. 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.
/BRADLEY W HOLDER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408
Prosecution Insights