DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 Amendment
The amendment filed 2026-03-02 has been entered and fully considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10, filed 2026-03-02, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 4-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the claimed invention has a practical application because the claim applies a technical solution to solve the technical problem of performing IPSec with anti-replay within multi-core environments where packets may be reordered, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In particular, the Examiner notes that although anti-replay can be a technological improvement, the claims are not sufficiently integrated to produce the practical application. That is, as applicant noted, the claims must include “the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification”; See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). In this instance, applicant notes that Fig. 5 shows that “the anti-replay windows 412 are different in size”, that in this example the receiving side can “identify the core 110 to be used to perform the anti-replay or other crypto-operations”, and that Fig. 6 shows “subspaces 420 on the transmit side can be used to identify or select subspaces 406, 408 for selecting cores 110 to perform anti-replay operations using the anti-replay windows 412, which now includes the anti-replay window 412 for the subspace 408”. However, the claims do not require that the anti-replay windows be different in size, that an identified core perform the anti-replay crypto-operations (the claim only requires performing IPSec using the identified core in some nebulous fashion), nor that the transmitting side includes the anti-replay window 412 for the subspace 408. Thus, the claims have not included the component features that “provide the improvement”.
Thus, the Examiner respectfully submits that the rejection is proper.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12, filed 2026-03-02, with respect to the claim amendments overcoming the cited prior art references of the rejection of claims 1 and 4-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) a have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn; however, upon further search and consideration, a new grounds of rejection – as necessitated by amendment – is made in view of newly cited prior art. The Examiner notes, however, that some arguments, which are still relevant to the new grounds of rejection are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the “ports in CJ cannot be considered ‘a receiver-core-ID field and a sender-core-ID field’ as recited in amended claim 1 because CJ’s ports are used as inputs to an RSS hash function to indirectly determine core assignment, whereas the claimed receiver-core-ID and sender-core-ID fields directly identify specific processing cores”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In particular, the Examiner notes that the claim terms do not specify how the identifiers work (e.g. direct reference used to determine processing core such as argued), and are thus just generic labels that encompass indirect mapping from port to core such as in CJ.
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 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (35 U.S.C. 101 Judicial Exception) without significantly more. The claims recite identifying the sender and recipient core of a packet and storing them in packet headers, a form of observation, evaluation, and/or judgment, which is a concept performed in the human mind and thus grouped as Mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the abstract idea, as they are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the courts.
Based upon consideration of all the relevant factors with respect to the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this determination is explained infra:
The following are Principles of Law:
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof”; 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has consistently held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable; See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, an application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection; See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293–94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The test for determining subject matter eligibility requires a first step of determining whether the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claims are directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories, then the Examiner must perform a two-part analysis to determine whether a claim that is directed to a judicial exception recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception. The first part of the second step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second part of the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination”’ to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step in the analysis is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’‒ i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” was not “enough” [in Mayo] to supply an “‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
In the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), the USPTO has prepared revised guidance for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility based upon rulings by the courts.
The Examiner is bound by and applies the framework as set forth by the Court in Mayo and reaffirmed by the Court in Alice and follows the 2019 PEG for determining whether the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
Step 1: Are the claims at issue directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
The Examiner finds that the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A – Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
The Examiner finds that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of identifying the sender and recipient core of a packet and storing them in packet headers, a form of observation, evaluation, and/or judgment, which is a concept performed in the human mind and thus grouped as Mental processes.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application?
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
In determining whether the abstract idea was integrated into a practical application, the Examiner has considered whether there were any limitations indicative of integration into a practical application, such as:
(1) Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; See MPEP § 2106.05(a)
(2) Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; See Vanda Memo (Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision: Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals)
(3) Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; See MPEP § 2106.05(b)
(4) Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; See MPEP § 2106.05(c)
(5) Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; See MPEP § 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The Examiner notes that clam features of: identifying the sender and recipient core of a packet and storing them in packet headers do not improve the functioning of a computer or technical field, do not effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not apply or use a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Instead of a practical application, the claim features of <List claim features> merely use a general-purpose computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and merely generally link the use of the abstract idea to a field of use (See MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Thus, the Examiner finds that the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Is there something else in the claims that ensures that they are directed to significantly more than a patent-ineligible concept?
The claims, as a whole, require nothing significantly more than generic computer implementation or can be performed entirely by a human. The additional element(s) or combination of element(s) in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than recitation of generic computer structure (e.g. a processor) that serves to perform generic computer functions (e.g. receiving packets, saving information, encoding information, and sending information) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. The claimed data packet, header, unencrypted portion, subspace ID information, path ID, sender thread ID, and receiver thread ID are all numbers, data structures, or datum. Each of these elements are individually dispositive of patent eligibility because of the following legal holdings:
“Data in its ethereal, non-physical form is simply information that does not fall under any of the categories of eligible subject matter under section 101.” Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Supreme Court has also explained that “[a]bstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment,” i.e., an abstraction. Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007).
A claim that recites no more than software, logic, or a data structure (i.e., an abstract idea) – with no structural tie or functional interrelationship to an article of manufacture, machine, process or composition of matter does not fall within any statutory category and is not patentable subject matter; data structures in ethereal, non-physical form are non-statutory subject matter. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1357.
Furthermore, the claimed invention does not have a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities, nor is it a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts; See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Rather, the claims are merely directed towards identifying the sender and recipient core of a packet and storing them in packet headers, which is similar to ideas that the courts have found to be abstract, as noted supra, and the claims are without a “practical application” or anything “significantly more”.
Considering each of the claim elements in turn, the function performed by the computer system at each step of the process does no more than require a generic computer to perform a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity at a high level of generality. For example, receiving packets and sending information are merely receiving or transmitting data over a network, which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in computers; See e.g. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Further, saving information and encoding information are merely forms of storing and retrieving information in memory, which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in computers; See e.g. Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Further note that the abstract idea of identifying the sender and recipient core of a packet and storing them in packet headers to which the claimed invention is directed has a prior art basis outside of a computing environment, e.g. postmaster changing the address on a mailing label.
The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” was not “enough” [in Mayo] to supply an “‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Viewed as a whole, the claims simply recite the steps of using generic computer components. The claims do not purport, for example, to improve the functioning of the computer system itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components. This is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
The dependent claims likewise incorporate the deficiencies of a claim upon which they ultimately depend and are also directed to non-patent-eligible subject matter.
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 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Specifically, Claim 1 recites the limitation “corresponding processing cores of a first processor; receiving, by a first processor”, and it’s unclear whether the two recitations of “a first processor” refer to the same or different processors. The dependent claims included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CJ et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication No. 20170078197-A1, hereinafter “CJ”) in view of Glynn et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication No. 20230388398-A1, hereinafter “Glynn”).
With respect to independent claim 1, CJ discloses a method for processing data packets, the method comprising:
assigning, by an … controller, a plurality of inner flows within data tunnels to corresponding processing cores of a first processor {paras. 0227-0239 and 0305-0313: “steering packets received by a multi-core device serving as a tunnel end point” and “distribute the packets across the one or more cores 505”}.
receiving, by a first processor, a data packet for processing {paras. 0227-0239: “flow distributor 550 can communicate with the multi-core system 575 to take in data packets and distribute the packets across the one or more cores 505”}, the data packet including a header in an unencrypted portion of the data packet, the header having subspace ID information corresponding to a processing core from which the data packet was sent {paras. 0305-0313: “the flow distributor of the device can identify a source port from the port allocation table to include in an outer header of packets of the request”, the “source port based on the identified core”}, wherein the subspace ID information comprises a receiver-core-ID field and a sender-core-ID field {paras. 0305-0313: “a first tuple identifying the first IP address as the source IP address, the second IP address as the destination IP address, the destination port and the identified source port”; note that the field names impart no structure}.
saving, by the first processor, the subspace ID information {para. 0311: “each of the cores included in the first node can include a source port identifier and a packet modifier”}.
encoding, within the header, a selected subspace ID information identifying a core within the first processor to which subsequent data packets are to be received {paras. 0305-0313: “when generating the outer header for the packets of the response, can use the same source port value selected by the first node. To select the correct source port value, the first node can, via a source port identifier of a core of the first node, select a source port from the port allocation table”}.
sending, by the first processor, in another data packet, the selected subspace ID information to a second processor that sent the data packet, the selected subspace ID information included in a header in an unencrypted portion of the data packet {paras. 0305-0313: “The first node, via the packet modifier, can generate the outer header that identifies the first tunnel IP address (A) configured on the first node as the source IP address, the second tunnel IP (B) configured on the second node as the destination IP address, a destination port (D), which is the same for both nodes, and the source port 740 (C) based on the selected value”}.
Although CJ teaches packet processing, CJ does not explicitly disclose using Internet Protocol Security (IPsec); however, Glynn discloses:
assigning, by an Internet Protocol Security (IPsec) controller, a plurality of inner flows within data tunnels … {paras. 0010-0022: using “IPSec”, wherein a “packet flow to be controlled can be identified by a combination of tuples”}.
receiving, by a first processor, a data packet for processing, …, and the header is an IPsec Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) header {para. 0012: “an IPSec packet format that is consistent with Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) based on RFC 4303. However, Original packet can be encrypted according to other IPSec packet formats such as Authentication Header (AH) based on RFC 2402”}.
performing IPsec operations using anti-replay windows and the identified processing core within the first processor {para. 0026: “anti-replay window 338 can track receipt of sequence numbers and adjust a window start and end based on ESN values in accordance with IPSec standards”}.
CJ and Glynn are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or problem-solving area of packet processing. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of CJ and Glynn before him or her, to modify/develop the multi-core packet processing of CJ’s system to utilize IPSec. The suggestion and/or motivation for doing so would have been because it is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, e.g., enables secure encapsulation of data flows. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the multi-core packet processing in CJ’s system with IPSec to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s). The Examiner notes that this motivation applies to all dependent and/or otherwise subsequently addressed claims.
With respect to dependent claim 4, CJ discloses wherein the subspace ID information and the selected subspace ID information are encoded with a subspace ID field of the data packets {para. 0307: “header of the packets of the request can include a four tuple, including a first tunnel IP address (A) configured on the first node, a second tunnel IP (B) configured on the second node, a destination port (D), which is the same for both nodes, and a source port (C)”, wherein the “source port [is] based on the identified core”}.
With respect to dependent claim 5, CJ discloses wherein the subspace ID field comprises a path ID, a sender thread ID, and a receiver thread ID {para. 0307: “a first tunnel IP address (A) ..., a second tunnel IP (B) …, a destination port (D), …, and a source port (C)”; the claim terms have no particular structure and read on virtually any identifier}.
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 Kevin Bechtel whose telephone number is 571-270-5436. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 09:00 - 17:00 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 (“Bill”) 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.
/Kevin Bechtel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491