DETAILED ACTION
The objection to the specification is withdrawn based on amendments filed 01/26/2026.
The objection to the drawings is withdrawn based on amendment filed 01/26/2026.
The 112(b) rejection of claims 1, 9 and 17 is withdrawn based on amendments filed 01/26/2026.
Claim 3, 11, and 18 are canceled.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-17, 19, and 20 are pending.
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 arguments filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that the claims include components or steps that provide the improvements as described in the specification, Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant argues the alleged benefits of scalability, resilience, observability, extensibility, and high-performance connectivity with disparate data systems, however, it is not clear how the steps recited in the amended claims would realize these benefits.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Ishihara does not teach requesting connection details from a secure data store, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ishihara teaches, in at least paragraph [0069], that a request is formed as a TCP/IP packet, which is sent from the access point to the server for processing. The server and the access point use a secure communication protocol, namely TCP/IP, to communicate, therefore, the server, which stores the data that is being requested is a secure data store. Thus, the current rejection is maintained because Ishihara does teach requesting connection details from a secure data store.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Peddada does not teach storing an indication of a changed certificate in response to a received notification indicating that the certificate has changed, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Examiner cited Gerling to teach storing the notification in persistent storage in response to the notification at least in Fig. 8 and paragraphs [0074] and [0202]. Examiner further cited Peddada to teach the notification indicating that the first connection details have changed at least in paragraph [0051]. Therefore, the current rejection is maintained because Peddada, in view of Gerling, does teach storing an indication of a changed certificate in response to a received notification indicating that the certificate has changed.
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.
Claims 1-8, 17, 19, and 20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the amended claim recites “the local volatile memory buffer”. It is unclear if “the local volatile memory buffer” is the same as “the volatile memory buffer” recited earlier in the claim. Therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite. For the purpose of examination, “the local volatile memory buffer” will be interpreted as “the volatile memory buffer.” Claims 2 and 4-8 inherit this rejection.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “a second instance”. It is unclear if “a second instance” of claim 8 is the same as “a second instance” of claim 7. For the purpose of examination, “a second instance” will be interpreted as “the second instance”.
Regarding claim 17, the amended claim recites “the local volatile memory buffer”. It is unclear if “the local volatile memory buffer” is the same as “the local memory buffer” recited earlier in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the local volatile memory buffer” will be interpreted as “the local memory buffer.” Claims 19 and 20 inherit this 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recites sending/receiving data and modifying stored data.
Claim 2 and 10 recites sending data.
Claim 3, 11, and 18 recites sending/receiving data and storing data.
Claims 4, 6, 12, and 14 recites an additional limitation for the notification.
Claim 5, 13, and 19 recites sending/receiving data, comparing data to determine if there’s a change, and storing data.
Claims 7-8, 15-16, and 20 recites sending/receiving data and comparing data.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because storing and invalidating connection details appears to be generating/manipulating data. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because storing connection data is a generic operation of a computer and “transmitting an instruction to…… invalidate the connection detail” may simply be further generation of data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-10, 12-17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160142508 A1 to Ishihara (Ishihara) in view of US 20230032867 A1 to Peddada et al. (Peddada), and in further view of US 20220129904 A1 to Gerling-Ospina et al. (Gerling).
Regarding claim 1, Ishihara teaches a system comprising: a memory storing program code (Ishihara Fig. 10, e.g., storage 203; [0131], e.g., The main storage device 502 is a memory device which temporarily stores an instruction executed by the processor 501…… Functions of the storage 203 or the temporary storage 1003 may be implemented in at least any of the main storage device 502); a volatile memory buffer (Ishihara [0069], e.g., the temporary storage 1003); one or more processing units (Ishihara [0069], e.g., the cache processor 1002) to execute the program code to cause the system to execute a first instance of a first connector registry service (Ishihara [0067], e.g., FIG. 10 illustrates a configuration diagram of an access point) to: receive a first request from a first instance of a first connector service (Ishihara [0069], e.g., When the cache processor 1002 receives an acquisition request of information (for example, including an information identifier such as a URL as an acquisition destination) from the terminal 101), the first request specifying a first connection identifier (Ishihara [0035], e.g., the request or the response is actually transmitted or received using a packet according to a communication protocol (such as TCP/IP), [0069], e.g., data…… in association with information identifying the data); determine that first connection details associated with the first connection identifier are stored in the volatile memory buffer (Ishihara [0069], e.g., the cache processor 1002 confirms whether the information is stored in the temporary storage (cache) 1003); in response to the determination that the first connection details are stored in the volatile memory buffer, transmit the first connection details from the volatile memory buffer to the first instance of the first connector service (Ishihara [0069], e.g., The cache processor 1002 then transmits the information to the terminal 101 via the communicator 222 and the wireless I/F 201 as a response); [receive a notification indicating that the first connection details have changed; and in response to the notification indicating that the first connection details have changed: store the notification in a persistent storage; and invalidate the first connection details stored in the volatile memory buffer]; receiving, at the first instance of the first connector registry service, a second request from a first instance of a second connector service (Ishihara [0069], e.g., When the cache processor 1002 receives an acquisition request of information (for example, including an information identifier such as a URL as an acquisition destination) from the terminal 101), the second request specifying a second connection identifier (Ishihara [0035], e.g., the request or the response is actually transmitted or received using a packet according to a communication protocol (such as TCP/IP), [0069], e.g., data…… in association with information identifying the data); determining, at the first instance of the first connector registry service, that second connection details associated with the second connection identifier are not stored in the local volatile memory buffer (Ishihara [0069], e.g., On the other hand, if the information is not stored in the temporary storage 1003, the cache processor 1002 acquires the information from the server 102 on behalf of the terminal 101); and in response to determining that the second connection details are not stored in the local volatile memory buffer: requesting, by the first instance of the first connector registry service, the second connection details from a secure data store (Ishihara [0069], e.g., the cache processor 1002 generates an acquisition request to the server 102 and transmits the request to the server 102 via the transferer 220 and the wired I/F 202 after the request is formed as a TCP/IP packet at the communicator 222); receiving, at the first instance of the first connector registry service, the second connection details from the secure data store (Ishihara [0069], e.g., The server 102 processes the request received from the access point 100 and transmits a response including data of the requested information to the access point 1000); storing, by the first instance of the first connector registry service, the second connection details in the local volatile memory buffer (Ishihara [0069], e.g., The cache processor 1002 stores the received response or data included in the received response in the temporary storage 1003 in association with information identifying the data); and transmitting, from the first instance of the first connector registry service, the second connection details to the first instance of the second connector service (Ishihara [0069], e.g., The cache processor 1002 then transmits the information to the terminal 101 via the communicator 222 and the wireless I/F 201 as a response).
Ishihara does not explicitly teach, but Peddada teaches to receive a notification indicating that the first connection details have changed (Peddada [0051], e.g., At 440, service 405-a may receive a certificate revocation response from the micro-service 415 in response to the certificate revocation request. The response may indicate to service 405-a whether the certificate chain is valid or not); [and in response to the notification indicating that the first connection details have changed: store the notification in a persistent storage]; and invalidate the first connection details stored in the volatile memory buffer (Peddada [0053], e.g., At 450, service 405-a may send a connection failure message to service 405-b based on determining the certificate chain being invalid).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ishihara with the teachings of Peddada with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of reducing usage of expired certificates (Peddada [0014], e.g., Thus, using these techniques, the device or service may perform a certificate revocation check using a local list of revoked certificates, and thus may avoid using a stale certificate revocation list, since the list may be provisioned locally and without (or with limited) network connectivity concerns).
Ishihara and Peddada do not explicitly teach, but Gerling teaches in response to the notification [indicating that the first connection details have changed]: store the notification in a persistent storage; (Gerling Fig. 8, e.g., element 802, 808; [0074], e.g., Transaction memory 220 may also store transaction data 224 that is used by transaction program 222. For example, transaction data 224 may include logs of transaction notifications from third-party systems 160; [0202], e.g., The computer-readable medium may include volatile or non-volatile).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined teachings of Ishihara and Peddada with the teachings of Gerling with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit saving the data in the case of power or memory loss.
Gerling does not explicitly teach, but Peddada teaches wherein the notification indicates that the first connection details have changed (Peddada [0051], e.g., The response may indicate to service 405-a whether the certificate chain is valid or not).
The motivation to combine is the same as above.
Regarding claim 2, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1. Ishihara does not explicitly teach, but Peddada teaches the one or more processing units to execute the program code to cause the system to execute the first instance of the first connector registry service to: transmit an instruction to the first instance of the first connector service to invalidate the first connection details stored at the first instance of the first connector service (Peddada [0053], e.g., At 450, service 405-a may send a connection failure message to service 405-b based on determining the certificate chain being invalid).
The motivation to combine is the same as that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1. Ishihara does not explicitly teach, but Peddada teaches wherein the notification is received from the secure data store (Peddada [0051], e.g., At 440, service 405-a may receive a certificate revocation response from the micro-service 415 in response to the certificate revocation request. The response may indicate to service 405-a whether the certificate chain is valid or not).
The motivation to combine is the same as that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1. Ishihara does not explicitly teach, but Peddada teaches the one or more processing units to execute the program code to cause the system to execute the first instance of the first connector registry service to: receive a second notification indicating that the second connection details have changed (Peddada [0051], e.g., At 440, service 405-a may receive a certificate revocation response from the micro-service 415 in response to the certificate revocation request. The response may indicate to service 405-a whether the certificate chain is valid or not); [and in response to the second notification indicating that the second connection details have changed: store the second notification in the persistent storage]; and transmit a second instruction to the first instance of the second connector service to invalidate the second connection details stored at the first instance of the second connector service (Peddada [0053], e.g., At 450, service 405-a may send a connection failure message to service 405-b based on determining the certificate chain being invalid).
The motivation to combine is the same as that of claim 1.
Ishihara and Peddada do not explicitly teach, but Gerling teaches and in response to the second notification [indicating that the second connection details have changed]: store the notification in a persistent storage; (Gerling Fig. 8, e.g., element 802, 808; [0074], e.g., Transaction memory 220 may also store transaction data 224 that is used by transaction program 222. For example, transaction data 224 may include logs of transaction notifications from third-party systems 160; [0202], e.g., The computer-readable medium may include volatile or non-volatile).
The motivation to combine Gerling is the same as that of claim 1.
Gerling does not explicitly teach, but Peddada teaches wherein the notification indicates that the second connection details have changed (Peddada [0051], e.g., The response may indicate to service 405-a whether the certificate chain is valid or not).
The motivation to combine is the same as claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 5. Ishihara does not explicitly teach, but Peddada teaches wherein the notification and the second notification are received from the secure data store (Peddada [0051], e.g., At 440, service 405-a may receive a certificate revocation response from the micro-service 415 in response to the certificate revocation request. The response may indicate to service 405-a whether the certificate chain is valid or not).
The motivation to combine is the same as that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1. Ishihara further teaches one or more processing units to execute the program code to cause the system to execute a second instance of the first connector registry service (Ishihara [0067], e.g., FIG. 10 illustrates a configuration diagram of an access point).
Ishihara does not explicitly teach but Peddada teaches to determine the first connection details stored in the persistent storage (Peddada [0051], e.g., At 440, service 405-a may receive a certificate revocation response from the micro-service 415 in response to the certificate revocation request. The response may indicate to service 405-a whether the certificate chain is valid or not); and in response to determination of the first connection details, transmit an instruction to a second instance of the first connector service to invalidate the first connection details stored at the second instance of the first connector service (Peddada [0053], e.g., At 450, service 405-a may send a connection failure message to service 405-b based on determining the certificate chain being invalid; Note if one instance of the first connector registry service shares the same certificate as a second instance of the first connector registry service, they will both be invalidated).
Regarding claim 8, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 7. Ishihara does not explicitly teach, but Peddada teaches the one or more processing units to execute the program code to cause the system to execute a second instance of the first connector registry service to: in response to determination of the notification (Peddada [0051], e.g., At 440, service 405-a may receive a certificate revocation response from the micro-service 415 in response to the certificate revocation request. The response may indicate to service 405-a whether the certificate chain is valid or not), determine that a first instance of a second connector service (Peddada [0051], e.g., service 405-a) with which the first connector registry service is in communication is not associated with the first connection details (Peddada [0053], e.g., at 455 service 405-a may communicate with 405-b…… if the certificate chain is valid; Note that if certificate is valid, then no changes have been made, hence the first connection details are not related); and in response to the determination that the first instance of the second connector service is not associated with the first connection details, do not transmit an instruction to the first instance of the second connector service to invalidate the first connection details (Peddada [0053], e.g., at 455 service 405-a may communicate with 405-b by establishing a secure connection if the certificate chain is valid; Note connection remains because instruction to invalidate is not sent).
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites a method of the system of claim 1, and is similarly analyzed.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites a method of the system of claim 2, and is similarly analyzed.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites a method of the system of claim 4, and is similarly analyzed.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites a method of the system of claim 5, and is similarly analyzed.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites a method of the system of claim 6, and is similarly analyzed.
Regarding claim 15, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 9. Ishihara does not explicitly teach, but Peddada teaches determining, at a second instance of the first connector registry service (Peddada Fig. 4, e.g., service 405-a), the notification stored in the persistent storage (Peddada 0051], e.g., At 440, service 405-a may receive a certificate revocation response from the micro-service 415 in response to the certificate revocation request. The response may indicate to service 405-a whether the certificate chain is valid or not); and in response to determination of the notification, transmitting, from the second instance of the first connector registry service, an instruction to a second instance of the first connector service to invalidate the first connection details stored at the second instance of the first connector service (Peddada [0053], e.g., At 450, service 405-a may send a connection failure message to service 405-b based on determining the certificate chain being invalid).
The motivation to combine is the same as that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites a method of the system of claim 8, and is similarly analyzed.
Regarding claim 17, Ishihara teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing program code that, when executed by a computing system (Ishihara [0131], e.g., The main storage device 502 is a memory device which temporarily stores an instruction executed by the processor 501).
Ishihara does not explicitly teach, but Peddada teaches transmitting an instruction to the first instance of the first connector service to invalidate the first connection details stored at the first instance of the first connector service (Peddada [0053], e.g., At 450, service 405-a may send a connection failure message to service 405-b based on determining the certificate chain being invalid). The rest of the claim recites one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of the system of claim 1, and is similarly analyzed.
The motivation to combine is the same as that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites one or more or more non-transitory computer-readable media of the system of claim 5, and is similarly analyzed.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites one or more non-transitory media of the method of claim 15, and is similarly analyzed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210385208 A1 to Tempel et al. discloses requesting credential, at a requesting management node, from a management server. The management server checks its local cache for the requested credentials. If the requested credentials are stored in its local cache, the management server sends a credentials response. If the requested credentials are not stored in its local cache, the management server sends a multicast request to one or more peer management nodes for the credentials. The management server receives a credentials response and stores the credentials in a local cache. The management server finally sends the credentials to the requesting management node.
US 20170180335 A1 to Quinlan et al. discloses a first application storing user credentials for accessing a resource of the first application. A second application may request the first application for the user credentials for accessing a resource of the second application.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4 pm 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, 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.
/LAWRENCE TRUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2434
/NOURA ZOUBAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434
Prosecution Insights