DETAILED ACTION
A response was received on 17 December 2025. By this response, Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-14, 16-20, and 22 have been amended. No claims have been added or canceled. Claims 1-8 and 10-22 are currently pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the objection to Figure 7 as requiring a prior art label, Applicant argues that the specification states that the memory 730 contains instructions to perform steps as recited in the independent claims (page 13 of the present response). However, it is noted that such instructions are not explicitly depicted in the figure. Only that which is old is actually shown in Figure 7.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-8 and 10-22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Samal et al, WIPO Publication WO2022/112646, and with particular reference to independent Claim 1, Applicant argues that the claim defines a specific mechanism of an exchange or negotiation where two devices transmit notifications indicating their respective policies for duplicate detection, whereas Samal relies on a static, predetermined rule to handle redundancy. Applicant alleges that Samal has a pre-existing and inherent policy (pages 14-15 of the present response, citing Smal, page 5, liens 1-7 and 17-19). However, it is noted that the portion Applicant has cited only describes example policies (noting the permissive “may” when describing the various rules). Applicant argues that steps 240 and 510 are messages after redundancy has been determined and there is no negotiation of the rules or policies or creating a policy (page 15 of the present response). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a “negotiation” of a policy) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, Samal does disclose the creation of a policy that is derived from the first and second policies, noting that a policy identical to one or the other supported first or second policies would still be derived from the first and second policies (see page 9, lines 9-28, as previously cited).
Therefore, for the reasons detailed above, the Examiner maintains the rejections as set forth below.
Drawings
The objection to Figure 7 as requiring a prior art label is NOT withdrawn, for the reasons detailed above. The objection to the drawings for failure to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the drawings.
Figure 7 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacemtent sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The objection to the abstract and specification for informalities are withdrawn in light of the amendments thereto. Applicant’s cooperation is again requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
The objections to the claims for informalities are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claims 1-8 and 10-22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite is NOT withdrawn, because not all issues have been addressed and/or because the amendments have raised new issues, as detailed below.
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 1-8 and 10-22 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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the policy is for identifying duplicated IKE SAs and is derived from on the first policy and the second policy”. First, it is not clear to which of the plural policies “the policy” is intended to refer. Further, the phrase “derived from on” is grammatically unclear. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 4 recites “the policy” in line 4. It is not clear to which of the plural policies this is intended to refer.
Claim 5 recites “the second policy further indicates” in line 2. It is not clear what is “further” indicated because there does not appear to be a prior recitation of what the policy indicates in this claim.
Claim 7 recites “is the first nonce value or the third nonce value” in line 13. It is not clear what the subject of the verb “is” is intended to be. The claim further recites “the minimum value” in line 15. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the minimum value in line 3.
Claim 8 recites “operations comprising: transmit… receive… transmit… and receive” in lines 4-10. The tense of the verbs “transmit” and “receive” is not clear as “operations” as the object of the verb “comprising”. It appears that these may be intended to recite “transmitting” and “receiving”. The claim further recites “wherein the policy is for identifying duplicated IKE SAs and is derived from on the first policy and the second policy”. First, it is not clear to which of the plural policies “the policy” is intended to refer. Further, the phrase “derived from on” is grammatically unclear. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 10 recites “operations comprising: transmit… receive… transmit… and receive” in lines 4-10. The tense of the verbs “transmit” and “receive” is not clear as “operations” as the object of the verb “comprising”. It appears that these may be intended to recite “transmitting” and “receiving”. The claim further recites “the first IKE_AUTH request and/or the second IKE_AUTH response contains a notification” in lines 12-13 and “the second IKE_AUTH request and/or the first IKE_AUTH response contains a notification” in lines 14-15. First, the use of “and/or” makes it unclear whether both the request and response are required to contain the notifications or if they are alternatives. Further, the verb “contains” does not clearly agree with the potentially plural subject. The claim additionally recites “thereby enabling creation of a policy supported by both the first communication device and the second communication device for identifying duplicated IKE SAs based on the first policy and the second policy” in lines 16-18. First, it is not grammatically clear what the phrase “for identifying duplicated IKE SAs” is intended to modify; that is, it is not clear whether the policy is for identifying the duplicated SAs or the device(s) is/are for identifying the duplicated SAs. Further, it is not grammatically clear what the phrase “based on the first policy and the second policy” is intended to modify. Additionally, if this is intended to modify the created policy, it is not clear why the created policy would identify the duplicated SAs based on the first and second policies rather than on the created policy itself. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 11 recites “the first policy indicates identifying” in lines 1-2. This usage of the term “indicates” is not clear in context as to what is actually indicated.
Claim 12 recites “the second policy indicates identifying” in lines 1-2. This usage of the term “indicates” is not clear in context as to what is actually indicated.
Claim 13 recites “a policy supported by both the first communication device and the second communication device for identifying duplicated IKE SAs as derived from the first policy and the second policy” in lines 4-6. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the policy created in Claim 8 or to a distinct policy. Further, it is not grammatically clear what the phrase “for identifying duplicated IKE SAs” is intended to modify; that is, it is not clear whether the policy is for identifying the duplicated SAs or the device(s) is/are for identifying the duplicated SAs. Additionally, it is not grammatically clear what the phrase “as derived from the first policy and the second policy” is intended to modify.
Claim 14 recites “the first policy further indicates” in lines 1-2 and “the second policy further indicates” in lines 2-3. It is not clear what is “further” indicated because there does not appear to be a prior recitation of what the policy indicates in this claim.
Claim 15 recites “the operations further comprising… determine… or initiate” in lines 1-5. The tense of the verbs “determine” and “initiate” is not clear as “operations” as the object of the verb “comprising”. It appears that these may be intended to recite “determining” and “initiating”.
Claim 16 recites “as a response to the first IKE_SA_INIT request, is the first nonce value or the third nonce value” in line 12-14. It is not clear what the subject of the verb “is” is intended to be. The claim further recites “the minimum value” in line 15. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the minimum value in line 3.
Claim 17 recites “the first policy indicates identifying” in lines 1-2. This usage of the term “indicates” is not clear in context as to what is actually indicated.
Claim 18 recites “the second policy indicates identifying” in lines 1-2. This usage of the term “indicates” is not clear in context as to what is actually indicated.
Claim 19 recites “a policy supported by both the first communication device and the second communication device for identifying duplicated IKE SAs as derived from the first policy and the second policy” in lines 5-7. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the policy created in Claim 10 or to a distinct policy. Further, it is not grammatically clear what the phrase “for identifying duplicated IKE SAs” is intended to modify; that is, it is not clear whether the policy is for identifying the duplicated SAs or the device(s) is/are for identifying the duplicated SAs. Additionally, it is not grammatically clear what the phrase “as derived from the first policy and the second policy” is intended to modify.
Claim 20 recites “the first policy further indicates” in lines 1-2 and “the second policy further indicates” in lines 2-3. It is not clear what is “further” indicated because there does not appear to be a prior recitation of what the policy indicates in this claim.
Claim 21 recites “the operations further comprising… determine… or initiate” in lines 1-5. The tense of the verbs “determine” and “initiate” is not clear as “operations” as the object of the verb “comprising”. It appears that these may be intended to recite “determining” and “initiating”.
Claim 22 recites “as a response to the first IKE_SA_INIT request, is the first nonce value or the third nonce value” in line 12-14. It is not clear what the subject of the verb “is” is intended to be. The claim further recites “the minimum value” in line 15. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the minimum value in line 3.
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Samal et al, WIPO Publication WO2022/112646.
In reference to Claim 1, Samal discloses a method that includes a first device transmitting a first IKE_AUTH request to a second device, receiving a second IKE_AUTH request and a first response to the first IKE_AUTH request from the second device, and transmitting a second response to the second IKE_AUTH request to the second device (Figure 2, steps 210, 215, 230, and 235; see also page 7, line 30-page 8, line 3, and page 8, lines 15-21), where the requests and or responses contain notifications indicating a first policy supported by the first device and a second policy supported by the second device for identifying duplicated IKE security associations thereby enabling creation of a policy supported by both the first and second devices and derived from the first and second policies (Figure 2, step 240; see also page 9, lines 9-28; see further Figure 5, step 510).
In reference to Claims 2 and 3, Samal further discloses identifying duplicated SAs based on IP addresses, device IDs, or child SAs (see page 9, lines 9-28; page 13, lines 15-32).
In reference to Claims 4-7, Samal further discloses identifying IKE SAs as duplicated in accordance with a policy where the first and second policies indicate maximum allowable numbers of duplicated SAs and when a maximum is reached, determining one of the SAs as unusable or initiating deletion of one of the SAs based on IKE_SA_INIT requests and responses (see Figure 2, steps 200, 205, 220, and 225, IKE_SA_INIT, and page 7, lines 21-28, and page 8, lines 5-13; see also steps 240-245, deletion; see also page 9, lines 9-28).
Claims 8 and 11-16 are directed to devices having functionality corresponding substantially to the methods of Claims 1-7, and are rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 10 and 17-22 are directed to software implementations of the methods of Claims 1-7, and are rejected by a similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Overby, Jr., US Patent 9021250, discloses a system in which policies and rules are negotiated for security policies.
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 Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights