DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/23/2026 has been entered.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed on 03/23/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding claim[s] 16 – 30 under the rejection for non – statutory subject matter – abstract idea, applicant’s remarks have been considered, however, they are not persuasive. Therefore, see the examiner’s response to such remarks in the office action below.
The examiner will address all other remarks that do not concern the prior art rejections, if any, in the office action below.
Applicant states on page[s] 11 and 12 of the remarks as filed: “
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §101
Rejection of claims 16-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an
abstract idea without significantly more
Reconsideration of this rejection is requested in view of the below remarks.
The rejection asserts that the claims fall within the "mathematical relationships"
grouping of abstract ideas and that the judicial exception is not integrated into a
practical application.
The Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are not directed to a mathematical
relationship, and, even if the claim were construed to involve mathematical
operations, the claim integrates any such operations into a practical application,
namely the secure transmission of data from an IoT device to an application server via
a telecommunication network using a re-encryption server.
Because claim 16 recites a method of "securely transmitting" data that includes, in
part, "an IoT device", "an application server", "a re-encryption server", and "a” telecommunication network", claim 16 does incorporate requirements that provide a practical advantage. In particular, because the re-encryption server receives the encrypted data from the application server and transmits the re-encrypted data to the application server, the data may be "securely transmitted" from the IoT device to the application server. (see amended claim 16 and paras. [004] and [008] of Applicant's originally filed specification).
Moreover, claim 16 includes, in part, "decrypting" and "re-encrypting by the re- encryption server the decrypted data." Because the re-encryption server decrypts and re-encrypts the data, the claim recites a technical improvement by improving the security of data tied with the specific network architecture in claim 16, rather than a mere mathematical relationship or abstract idea. Indeed, claim 16 requires that the re- encryption server re-encrypts the data "using an encryption key of the application server," which provides a practical application in secure data transmission by isolating cryptographic domains and preventing exposure of IoT device keys to the application server. (see paras. [0006]-[0008] of the Applicant's originally filed specification).
Accordingly, claims 16-30 are not directed to mathematical relationships and, even if construed to include such, integrate such into a practical application.
Withdrawal of this rejection is kindly requested.
In response, the examiner isn’t persuaded. The examiner points out, that the examiner does not read the subject matter of paragraphs: [0006]-[0008] of the specification as filed into the claim language. Applicant's encrypting of data then moving the data while encrypted data generically between devices [i.e. servers, IOT devices, proxies] is not a practical application, but extra solution activity for use with the identified abstract idea.
***The examiner notes that claim[s] 19, 23, 27, could be considered significantly more or a practical application of the previously identified abstract idea.
Response to Amendment
Status of the instant application:
Claim[s] 1 – 15 have been cancelled in the previous prosecution.
Claim[s] 16 – 34, 36 are pending in the instant application.
Regarding claim[s] 16 – 34, are rejected over the various anticipatory and obviousness rejections, applicant’s claim amendments have been considered, therefore, the rejections are withdrawn. Therefore, see the office action below.
Regarding claim[s] 36, that is newly added and is addressed in the office action below.
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.
Claim[s] 36 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 following claim language that is not supported by the specification as filed “….wherein the data is encrypted prior to a connection being formed between the re-encryption server and the IOT device.”
Appropriate action required.
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.
Claim[s] 16 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea: “mathematical relationships: [mathematical relationships, mathematical calculations]” without significantly more.
Regarding claim[s] 16, 26, 29, for example, the claim limitations that recite the identified abstract idea in at least the claim(s) 16, recite(s)
“……..wherein a re-encryption server decrypts data encrypted by the IoT device; and
re-encrypts the decrypted data by an encryption key of the application server in such a way that the application server can obtain the data by decrypting the re-encrypted data….”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining claim limitations amount to adding insignificant solution activity to the identified judicial exception:
“A method for securely transmitting data from an IoT device to an
application server via a telecommunication network……………………………….”
The claim(s) 17 – 25, 27, 28, 30 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim language either recites a further identified abstract idea/the same identified abstract idea or adding insignificant extra – solution activity to the identified judicial exception in the following manner:
As per claim 17. [i.e. abstract idea – mathematical relationship/calculation]
As per claim 18. [i.e. a further identified abstract idea – mathematical relationship/calculation]
As per claim 19. ***[i.e…significantly more/practical application]**
As per claim 20. [i.e. a further identified abstract idea – mathematical relationship/calculation]
As per claim 21. [i.e. a further identified abstract idea – mathematical relationship/calculation]
As per claim 22. [i.e. a further identified abstract idea – mathematical relationship/calculation]
As per claim 23. ***[i.e…significantly more/practical application]**
As per claim 24. [i.e. adding insignificant solution activity to the judicial exception]
As per claim 25. [i.e. a further identified abstract idea – mathematical relationship/calculation]
As per claim 27. ***[i.e…significantly more/practical application]**
As per claim 28. [i.e. a further identified abstract idea – mathematical relationship/calculation/adding insignificant solution activity used with identified judicial exception]
As per claim 30. [i.e. a further identified abstract idea – mathematical relationship/calculation]
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)(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) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102[a][2] as being taught by Chauby et al. [US PAT # 11258774].
As per claim 36. Chauby does teach a method for securely transmitting data from an IoT device to an application server via a telecommunication network without providing decryption keys of the IoT device to the application server [Chauby, Figure # 1A and 1B and col. 2, lines 37 – 41, In some cases, a network device needs to inspect TLS/SSL traffic to enforce a security policy. For example, the network device may need to inspect TLS/SSL traffic transmitted between a client device and a server device via a communication session.
Where further of Chau by, at figure # 2, and col. 11, lines 2 – 27, Client device 210 may include a communication device and/or a computing device. For example, client device 210 may include a wireless communication device, a user equipment (UE), a mobile phone (e.g., a smart phone or a cell phone, among other examples), a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a handheld computer, a desktop computer, a gaming device, a wearable communication device (e.g., a smart wristwatch or a pair of smart eyeglasses, among other examples), an Internet of Things (IoT) device, or a similar type of device. Client device 210 may communicate with one or more other devices of environment 200, as described elsewhere herein. Server device 220 includes one or more devices capable of receiving, generating, storing, processing, providing, and/or routing information associated with adaptive control of secure sockets layer proxy, as described elsewhere herein. Server device 220 may include a communication device and/or a computing device. For example, server device 220 may include a server, an application server, a client server, a web server, a database server, a host server, a proxy server, a virtual server (e.g., executing on computing hardware), a server in a cloud computing system], the method comprising:
receiving by a re-encryption server encrypted data that has been encrypted by the IoT device, wherein the data is encrypted prior to a connection being formed between the re-encryption server and the IoT device [Chaubey, at col. 2, lines 50 – 63, As an example, the client device [i.e. applicant’s IOT device] may transmit TLS/SSL traffic to the server device. The network device [i.e. applicant’s re – encryption server] may receive the TLS/SSL traffic and may decrypt the TLS/SSL traffic using the cryptographic keys used to perform the first handshake.];
decrypting by the re-encryption server the encrypted data that has been encrypted by the IoT device to obtain decrypted data, wherein the re-encryption server comprises a decryption key [Chaubey, at col. 2, lines 50 – 63, As an example, the client device [i.e. applicant’s IOT device] may transmit TLS/SSL traffic to the server device. The network device [i.e. applicant’s re – encryption server] may receive the TLS/SSL traffic and may decrypt the TLS/SSL traffic using the cryptographic keys used to perform the first handshake.]; and
re-encrypting by the re-encryption server the decrypted data to obtain re- encrypted data using an encryption key of the application server [Chauby, Figure # 1A and 1B and col. 6, lines 16 – 22, The network device may re-encrypt the information so that the re-encrypted information may be transmitted to the intended destination of the information (e.g., the client device and/or the server device) such that the client device and server device are not aware that there is a man-in-the-middle between the client device and the server device] such that data of the re-encrypted data is obtainable by the application server by the application server decrypting the re-encrypted data [Chaubey, at Figure # 1A and 1B and col. 6, lines 16 – 22, The network device may re-encrypt the information so that the re-encrypted information may be transmitted to the intended destination of the information (e.g., the client device and/or the server device) such that the client device and server device are not aware that there is a man-in-the-middle between the client device and the server device].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim[s] 16 – 34 contain allowable subject matter allowed, but as allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
***The examiner notes that a reason for allowance can be written in the next subsequent office action, once all identified formal requirements have been overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zakaria et al., who does teach an IoT interface slot for an IoT hub. For example, one embodiment of an apparatus comprises: an Internet of Things (IoT) hub interface slot to be fixedly coupled to an appliance, the IoT hub interface slot having an internal chamber, a bottom portion and a top portion, the top portion having an aperture exposing the interface slot to be accessible from outside of the appliance; the internal chamber sized to accommodate an IoT hub device to provide wireless communication functionality to the appliance; and the bottom portion having an embedded IoT hub interface fixedly coupled thereto, the embedded IoT hub interface having a first set of electrical contact portions facing the internal chamber to provide electrical connectivity to a corresponding set of electrical contact portions of an appliance interface on the IoT hub device when the IoT hub device is inserted into the internal chamber, the embedded IoT hub interface having a second set of electrical contact portions facing outwards from the bottom portion of the IoT hub interface slot, one or more of the second set of electrical contact portions to be electrically coupled to a power supply system within the appliance to provide power to the IoT hub device when inserted into the chamber and another one or more of the second set of electrical contact portions to be electrically coupled to a ground plane within the appliance to electrically ground the IoT hub device when inserted into the chamber.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANT SHAIFER - HARRIMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7910. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9am to 5pm.
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, Ali Shayanfar can be reached at 571 – 270 - 1050. 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.
/DANT B SHAIFER HARRIMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434
Prosecution Insights