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 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 11 and 18 have been amended.
In light of Applicant’s amendment objection to abstract has been withdrawn.
In light of the Terminal Disclaimer of 12-23-2025, the double patenting rejections of claims have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments/arguments filed on 12-23-2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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, 4, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14 and 18 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.
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.
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 4 and 14, Weis furthermore discloses, wherein the device is a gateway (paragraph [0019], “[e]ach key server KSi acts as a proxy for the other key servers”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the well known gateway to enable data sharing and communication between networks.
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.
Claims 2, 12 and 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weis and Lyon, 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, and Lyon, 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 and Lyon, 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 and Lyon, 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.
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
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 Ali Abyaneh whose telephone number is (571) 272-7961. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from (8:00-5:00). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Lagor can be reached on (571) 270-5143. can be reached on (571) 272-4063. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned as (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).
/ALI S ABYANEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437