DETAILED ACTION
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 . 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15-20 are pending, claims 1, 11 and 18 have been amended, and claims 21-23 have been newly presented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments/arguments filed on 06-26-2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims when analyzed under 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, are directed to abstract idea. Claim 1 for example recites a device, and therefore, is a machine. The claim 1 recites the limitation of “store a portion of a data set in a local repository, the portion of the data set being replicated from a central repository storing the data set, wherein the central repository dynamically assigns one or more nodes to the subnetwork, and wherein the data set comprises data for a plurality of subnetworks and the portion of the data set comprises data for the subnetwork; determine the central repository is unavailable to provide the requested data by accessing a policy server, wherein the policy server stores a policy that details when the central repository is unavailable; intercept a request for data from a node in the subnetwork to the central repository while the central repository is unavailable to provide the requested data based on the policy; access the requested data from the local repository, wherein the requested data comprises data from the portion of the data set that has been replicated from the central repository; and provide the requested data to the node”. These limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation are directed performance of the limitation in a human mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or by human. For example, the claim encompasses a branch office serves employees within its particular region (a device associated with a subnetwork).The branch office keeps copies of the files for own employees in a local filing cabinet (store portion of a dataset in a local repository). Those files are copied from the corporate office’s master filing room (the portion of the data set being replicated from a central repository). The corporate office determines which employees belong to each branch (The central repository dynamically assigns one or more nodes to the subnetwork). The corporate office maintains files for all branch offices, and each branch office keeps only its own files (the data set comprises data for a plurality of subnetworks, and portion comprises data for the subnetwork). A supervisor checks the company policy by looking at policies written on a piece of paper to determine if corporate office is unavailable (determine the central repository is unavailable by accessing policy server). The policy written on a piece of paper includes condition for when the corporate office is unavailable (the policy server stores a policy that details when the central repository is unavailable). A human Clark stops an employee’s request form being sent to corporate office when the corporate office is closed (intercept the request for data from a node to the central repository while the central repository is unavailable). The Clark retrieves the requested file form the branch office’s filing cabinet (access the requested data from the local repository ). The file is a copy of file previously received from corporate office (the requested data comprises data from the replicated portion). The Clark provide the copied file to the employee (provide the requested data to the node). Thus, the claim could be performed by human when analyzed under step 2A prong 1.
Claim is further analyzed in step 2A prong 2, to evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. However, each of the remaining limitation (i.e., processor ) is no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The combination of these additional element is no more than generic computer functions. Thus, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim is additionally analyzed under Step 2B to evaluates whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. When claims evaluated under step 2B, it is no more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication anything other than a generic computer component. The mere “store a portion of a data set in a local repository…wherein the central repository dynamically assigns one or more nodes to the subnetwork…determine the central repository is unavailable to provide the requested data by accessing a policy server…intercept a request for data from a node in the subnetwork to the central repository…access the requested data from the local repository…and provide the requested data to the node” is a well-understood, routing and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here.
Independent claims 10 and 18 include limitations similar to the limitations of claim 1 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
In claim 2, wherein the data set includes public keys associated with one or more nodes in the plurality of subnetworks, and the portion of the data set includes a subset of the public keys that are associated with the subnetwork, is considered pre-solution or extra solution activity of data gathering for use in the claim that is well-known, routine, and conventional activity. Insignificant extra solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional.
In claim 3, wherein the data set includes attributes of nodes in the plurality of subnetworks, and the portion of the data set includes the attributes of a subset of the nodes that are associated with the subnetwork, is considered insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering for use in the claim that is well-known, routine, and conventional activity. Insignificant extra solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional.
In claim 5, obtain an update to the portion of the data set provided by the central repository, is considered insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering for use in the claim that is well-known, routine, and conventional activity. Insignificant extra solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional.
In claim 6, wherein the central repository is configured to initiate providing the update to the device, is considered insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering for use in the claim that is well-known, routine, and conventional activity. Insignificant extra solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional.
In claim 7, determine whether the central repository is available to provide the requested data, could be performed by human. A human could determine if central repository is available to provide the requested data/file. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine whether the central repository is available to provide the requested data by at least one of:(i) obtaining a communication indicative of a status of the central repository, and(ii) accessing the policy defining one or more conditions in which the central repository is to be considered as being available or unavailable, could be performed by human . Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. These additional elements do not improve the functioning of the computer or monitoring technology, nor add an inventive concept.
In claim 9, generate a digital signature based on at least a portion of the requested data using a private key associated with the central repository, is considered as mathematical operation. The court has found that mathematical relationships fall within the judicial exception, labeled as abstract idea. The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer or another technology, and do not otherwise integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because each limitation being claimed is part of mathematical operation and can be drawn to mathematical relationship
In claim 10, wherein the portion of the data set is obtained from the central repository prior to intercepting the request for data, is considered insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering for use in the claim that is well-known, routine, and conventional activity. Insignificant extra solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional.
Dependent claims 12, 13 and 15-23 include limitations similar to the limitations of dependent claims 2, 3 and 5-10 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above.
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, 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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 11, 13, 18 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weis et al. (US Publication No.2017/0359323), hereinafter Weis, in view of Lyon (US Publication No. 2013/0103785), hereinafter Lyon, further in view of Jackson et al. (US Publication 2010/0161784), hereinafter Jackson.
As per claim 1, 11 and 18, Weis discloses, a device associated with a subnetwork, the device comprising: one or more processors configured to: store a portion of a data set in a local repository, the portion of the data set being replicated from a central repository storing the data set (paragraph [0020], any of the key server KS1-KS4 (local repository) obtain a key of the other key server from the central key server KS-CC1. Each key in the central key server is considered as a portion of the all keys), wherein the data set comprises data for a plurality of subnetworks and the portion of the data set comprises data for the subnetwork (paragraph [0018], “a central key server KS-CCi…to store multiple keys (data)” associated with multiple stations/subnetworks. Each key is associated with a station and is considered a portion of all keys stored in central key server); wherein the requested data comprises data from the portion of the data set that has been replicated from the central repository; and provide the requested data to the node (paragraph [0046], “each key server 102(i) provides the keys and an associated authentication and cryptographic policy to a local device group connected with the key server, e.g., over a local area network served by the key server”).
Wise does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Lyon discloses determine the central repository is unavailable to provide the requested data by accessing a policy server, wherein the policy server stores a policy that details when the central repository is unavailable (paragraph [0031], " The ability of the selected resource provider to service requests for the content item in accordance with the preferences specified by the content publisher is monitored at 514, e.g., by a spider process of monitoring module 502 of FIG. SA. In some embodiments, the availability of the content item at the selected resource provider is also monitored at 514; and if the content item is at some point determined to be unavailable, …In the event that the selected resource provider is unable to service a received request for the content item, a different resource provider capable of servicing the request is selected”, paragraph [0040], “policy for governing…to redirect incoming content requests to endpoints capable of service the request”, paragraph [0051], “select appropriate endpoint for servicing a requests based on, for example, a policy specified by the publisher”); intercept a request for data from a node in the subnetwork to the central repository (paragraph [0031], a request for content is received by resource manager) while the central repository is unavailable to provide the requested data based on the policy (paragraph [0031],“In the event that the selected resource provider is unable to service a received request for the content item, a different resource provider capable of servicing the request is selected”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Weis with Lyon. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to more intelligently redirect content requests.
Wise in view of Lyon does not explicitly disclose, wherein the central repository dynamically assigns one or more nodes to the subnetwork. However, in an analogous art, Jackson discloses, CRM 402 assigns nodes 102 to subnet (paragraph [0021] ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wise and Lyon with Jackson. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve the predictable result of improving efficiency, scalability and adaptability of network systems.
As per claim 3 and 13, Weis furthermore discloses, wherein the data set includes attributes of nodes in the plurality of subnetworks, and the portion of the data set includes the attributes of a subset of the nodes that are associated with the subnetwork (paragraph [0043], central key server stores data structure information of key server KS1 and KS2 (subnetwork), and paragraph [0046], each key server provide the key and an associated authentication and cryptographic policy to a local device group (subset of the node) connected with the key server).
As per claim 7, Lyon furthermore discloses, determine whether the central repository is available to provide the requested data (paragraph [0050], “requested content is not internally available”). The motivation is similar to the motivation provided in claim 1.
As per claim 8, Lyon furthermore disclose determine whether the central repository is available to provide the requested data by at least one of:(i) obtaining a communication indicative of a status of the central repository, and (ii) accessing a policy defining one or more conditions in which the central repository is to be considered as being available or unavailable ( paragraph [0040], “define…a policy for governing the manner in which to redirect incoming content requests to endpoints capable of service the request”).
The motivation is similar to the motivation provided in claim 1.
As per claims 21, 22 and 23, Jackson furthermore discloses, assign, using the central repository, the one or more nodes to the subnetwork based on performance requirements of the one or more nodes, performance requirements of network links, or a combination thereof (paragraph [0021], “the CRM 402 assigns nodes 102 to subnets based on changes in the environment, for example due to jamming or terrain 206 obscurations between nodes preventing them from communicating. ..., the CRM 402 assigns nodes 102 to subnets based on the spatial relationship of nodes 102 to one another... , the CRM 402 determines whether two nodes 102 have a common Area of Responsibility (AOR) 208 in determining the distance between nodes 102. Nodes 102 with common mission responsibilities ideally should be grouped in common subnets 202”); and reassign, using the central repository, a node of the one or more nodes to a second subnetwork (paragraph [0021], “reassigning nodes 102 to different subnets 202”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary kill in the art to dynamically assign nodes to subnet based on requirements as disclosed by Jackson, in order to allow the network to optimize resource unitization and maintain desired performance characteristics, and improve scalability and efficiency in distributed networks.
Claims 2, 12 and 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weis, Lyon and Jackson, further in view of Walsh et al. US Publication No. 2011/0252459), hereinafter Walsh.
As per claim 2, 12 and 19, While Weis as modified discloses the data set includes keys associated with the nodes in the plurality of subnetworks (Weis, paragraph [0018], a central key server stores multiple keys associated with multiple stations), Weis as modified does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Walsh discloses, wherein the data set includes public keys associated with one or more nodes in the plurality of subnetworks (paragraph [0047], the authorization key store contains the public keys of accounts ), and the portion of the data set includes a subset of the public keys that are associated with the subnetwork (paragraph [0061], user’s public key).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Weis with Walsh. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, in order to achieve the predictable result of performing a robust authentication through the old and well known public key authentication mechanism.
Claims 5, 6, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weis, Lyon and Jackson, further in view of Supramaniam et al. (US Publication No. 2003/0110397), hereinafter Supramaniam.
As per claim 5 and 15, Weis as modified does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Supramaniam discloses, obtain an update to the portion of the data set provided by the central repository (paragraph [0077], “sending a security policy update form the central server 302 to the local server 304”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Weis with Supramaniam. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve the predictable result of distributing the changes to security policies to the devices in the security system.
As per claim 6 and 16, Supramaniam furthermore discloses, wherein the central repository is configured to initiate providing the update to the device (paragraph [0123], “update or change command is initiated from a central server”). The motivation to combine is similar to the motivation provided in claims 5 and 15.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weis, Lyon and Jackson, further in view of Yeung et al. (US Publication No. 2003/0074456), hereinafter Yeung.
As per claim 9, Weis as modified does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art Yeung discloses generate a digital signature based on at least a portion of the requested data using a private key associated with the central repository (claim 21, a data request is digitally signed with a private key of the central server means).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Weis with Yeung. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, in order to achieve the predictable result of protecting sensitive data by using the well-known private key encryption mechanism.
Claims 10, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weis, Lyon and Jackson, further in view of Prince et al. (US Publication No. 2011/0282997), hereinafter Prince.
As per claim 10, 17 and 20, Wise as modified does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art Prince discloses, wherein the portion of the data set is obtained from the central repository prior to intercepting the request for data (paragraph [0047]- [0048], proxy server provides cached files of the original server , it is noted that the cached file is obtained from original servers/central repository prior to obtaining the request).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Weis with Prince. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to increase data retrieval performance.
References Cited, Not Used
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ma et al. (US Publication No. 2003/0069954) discloses, Subnet pooling by host group type and internet service provider allows filtering of subnet pool and efficient assignment of an incoming host request to an appropriate subnet within a group and ISP of the host request types.
Raman et al., (US Publication No.2009/0034733) discloses, a management system generates a sequence of keys and an identifier of each key in the sequence. A current key in the sequence and the identifier of the current key are transferred from the management system to a storage system. The storage system encrypts the data into encrypted data using the current key. The storage system stores the identifier and the encrypted data. The identifier and the encrypted data are retrieved from the storage system. The key in the sequence identified by the identifier is transferred from the management system to the storage system. The storage system decrypts the encrypted data using the decryption key.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI ABYANEH whose telephone number is (571)272-7961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 8:00 am-5:00pm (EST).
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at (571)270-5143. 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.
/ALI S ABYANEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights