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
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I in the reply filed on 5/7/2026 is acknowledged.
For brevity’s sake, the restriction requirement made in the office action mailed on 4/20/2026 has not been repeated herein.
This office action is in response to the communication filed on 5/7/2026.
Claims 1-22 and 25-30 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/7/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains phrases which can be implied as well as compares the invention with the prior art (e.g. “a new approach is proposed that contemplates”, “a new network architecture”. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-22 and 25-30 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, 5, 14, 16, 19, 25, and 30 recite “high-speed interconnect”. Neither the claim nor the specification provide a way to determine the scope of “high-speed” and as such the person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain what speed would fall above the threshold of “high-speed”, and therefore would not be able to ascertain the scope of the claim language. Further, what is considered “high-speed” may change over time, and thus this language is not clear.
Claims 1, 16, 25, and 30 recite “the encrypted incoming request” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 14, 15, 16, 19, 25, 28, and 30 recite “and/or”. The use of such language makes it unclear whether both limitations are required or whether only one is required. As such the person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the scope of the language.
Claim 1 recites “encrypt processing result” which is not grammatically correct.
Claim 1 recites “…processing result of the data” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claims 1, 16, 19, 25, and 30 recite “the encrypted processing result” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Claims 1, 16, 19, 25, and 30 recite “the decrypted data” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Claims 1, 8, 12, 15, 19, 25, 26, 28, and 30 recite “the data” which has multiple antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 5 recites “to at” which is not grammatically correct.
Claim 5 recites “high-speed active interconnect”. Neither the claim nor the specification provide a way to determine the scope of “high-speed” and as such the person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain what speed would fall above the threshold of “high-speed”, and therefore would not be able to ascertain the scope of the claim language. Further, what is considered “high-speed” may change over time, and thus this language is not clear.
Claim 5 recites “high-speed electronics”. Neither the claim nor the specification provide a way to determine the scope of “high-speed” and as such the person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain what speed would fall above the threshold of “high-speed”, and therefore would not be able to ascertain the scope of the claim language. Further, what is considered “high-speed” may change over time, and thus this language is not clear.
Claim 7 recites “ARM” which is an acronym that has not been defined by the claim.
Claim 8 recites “the processing result of the data from the one or more of the processing units” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “the one or more of the processing units” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “a general purpose processing unit which configuration is…” which is not grammatically correct.
Claims 15 and 28 recite “the processing result” which has multiple antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 15 recites “the one or more processing units” which has multiple antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 15 recites “the data processing units” which has multiple antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 17 recites “the gateways…” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claims 17 and 29 recite “such data” which has multiple antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 18 recites “every such domain” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 19 recites “the processing result of the data” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 19 recites “other of the one or more switches” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 21 recites “the gateway boundaries” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim limitations “gateway configured to receive”, “gateway configured to decrypt and parse”, “gateway configured to encrypt”, “processing units configured to process”, “microprocessor core configured to manage”, “microprocessor core configured to direct”, “microprocessor core configured to provide”, “communication interface configured to interface to and interact with”, “processing units configured to access”, “high-speed interconnects configured to connect”, “gateways…configured to define”, “secure multi-core data processing units….configured to receive and decrypt”, “secure multi-core data processing units….configured to process”, “secure multi-core data processing units….configured to encrypt”, “memories configured to store”, “means for receiving”, “means for decrypting and parsing”, “means for processing”, and “means for encrypting” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The examiner has looked and did not find the structure clearly linked to the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
All rejected dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon one of the above addressed claims.
Conclusion
Claims 1-22 and 25-30 have been rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 8,839,004 taught a system for secure application hosting is provided. The system includes a memory, a first processor coupled to the memory, a second processor coupled to the first processor via a bus, and a data storage device and a network interface coupled to the second processor. The second processor is configured to perform cryptographic processing to provide an encrypted domain, in which the network interface and data storage device operate, and an unencrypted domain, in which the processor and memory operate.
US 2021/0064741 taught in a confidential information processing server, when the processing query execution unit receives a processing request, the TEE trusted part processing unit generates a confidential extraction query for extracting data that matches with a condition of a processing target in the processing request by confidential extraction based on the processing request and an encryption key that can be used only in a TEE trusted part, the confidential extraction processing unit instructs execution of the confidential extraction query so as to extract encrypted data of the processing target while the data is kept encrypted from the encryption DB unit, the TEE trusted part processing unit decrypts the encrypted data of the processing target extracted by the confidential extraction processing unit with an encryption key, and executes data processing requested by the processing request, and the processing query execution unit returns an execution result of the data processing to a transmission source of the processing request.
US 2021/0406200 taught that a storage device may be configured for providing secure data storage, as well as one or more post-processing operations to be performed with the data. The encryption core, which may be configured to decrypt data, may control execution of one or more post-processing operations using the data. A read command received from a host device may include a tag associated with data identified by the read command. When encrypted data is retrieved from memory according to the read command, the encryption core may decrypt the encrypted data and provide the decrypted data for post-processing based on the tag. A corresponding post-processing operation may return a result when executed using the decrypted data. Rather than raw data identified by the read command, the result may be delivered to the host device in response to the read command.
US 12,039,058 taught performing a computational operation on a server host using a secure enclave are provided. Exemplary methods include: receiving an encrypted service request from a client host, the client host encrypting a service request to produce the encrypted service request using a shared secret, the service request specifying the computational operation; decrypting, in a secure enclave that is established by a secure environment, the encrypted service request using the shared secret to produce a decrypted service request; performing the computational operation, in the secure enclave, using the decrypted service request to generate a service result; encrypting, in the secure enclave, the service result using the shared secret to create an encrypted service result; and providing the encrypted service result to the client host, the client host decrypting the encrypted service result using the shared secret.
US 2024/0419845 a computer having a processor that has a function for setting a confidence region in a memory, the confidence region having ensured security and being logically isolated. The computer system accepts a request for execution of processing on encrypted data, in which data is encrypted that includes a plurality of block processes and also includes confidential information, determines whether the encrypted data needs to be decrypted when executing one block process, and executes the block process using a region that is different from the confidence region when the encrypted data does not need to be decrypted, or executes the block process using the confidence region when the encrypted data needs to be decrypted.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW T HENNING whose telephone number is (571)272-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-2PM ET.
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, William Korzuch can be reached at (571)272-7589. 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.
/MATTHEW T HENNING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
