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 (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.
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to applicant’s claim amendment(s) submitted on 07/29/2024. Claims 1-40 are pending.
Specification (Title)
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 10, 21 and 30 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,297 and 297’ hereinafter. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to the following:
Claims 1 and 21 (18787483) a first server having a hardware layer and an operating system (OS) layer; the operating system layer comprising: a first virtual private server (VPS) configured with a first virtual private network (VPN) protocol, the first VPS configured to support a first communication tunnel encrypted with the first VPN protocol; and a second VPS operatively coupled to the first VPS, the second VPS configured to spawn a second communication tunnel encrypted with a second communication protocol; and the first server configured to initiate a VPN connection, including forward a received communication from the first communication tunnel to the second VPS on a first internet protocol (IP) scheme, and the second VPS configured to initiate the second communication tunnel on a second IP scheme different from the first IP scheme.; maps to Claim 1 (297’) a first server having a hardware layer with one or more hardware resources and an operating system (OS) layer; the operating system layer operatively coupled to the hardware layer, the operating system comprising: a first virtual private server (VPS) configured with OpenVPN protocol, the first VPS configured to generate an OpenVPN certificate configured to support a first communication tunnel with a secondary source, the first communication tunnel encrypted with the OpenVPN protocol; and a second VPS operatively coupled to the first VPS via a private internet protocol (IP) scheme, the second VPS configured with WireGuard protocol configured to generate a WireGuard certificate, the second VPS configured to spawn a second communication tunnel encrypted with the WireGuard protocol; and the first server configured to receive a communication from the secondary source to initiate a virtual private network connection, the received communication configured to initiate the first communication tunnel to the first VPS, the first VPS configured to forward the received communication to the second VPS on a first private IP scheme, and the second VPS configured to initiate the second communication tunnel to a second server on a second private IP scheme different from the first private IP scheme.
Claims 10 and 30 (18787483) a first server configured to be operatively coupled to one or more second servers, each of the servers having a hardware layer and an operatively coupled operating system (OS) layer; each server operating system layer comprising: a first virtual private server (VPS) configured with a first protocol, the first VPS configured to generate a first communication tunnel with a secondary source, the first communication tunnel encrypted with the first protocol; and a second VPS operatively coupled to the first VPS, the second VPS configured with a second protocol, the second VPS configured to spawn a second communication tunnel encrypted with the second protocol; and the first server configured to receive a communication from the secondary source to initiate a virtual private network (VPN) connection, the received communication configured to initiate the first communication tunnel to the first VPS, the first VPS configured to forward the received communication to the second VPS on a first private internet protocol (IP) scheme, and the second VPS configured to initiate the second communication tunnel to one of the one or more second servers on a second private IP scheme different from the first private IP scheme; maps to Claim 9 (297’) a first server operatively coupled to a second server and a third server, each of the first, second, and third servers having a hardware layer with one or more hardware resources and an operatively coupled operating system (OS) layer; each server operating system layer comprising: a first virtual private server (VPS) configured with OpenVPN protocol, the first VPS configured to generate an OpenVPN certificate and to support a first communication tunnel with a secondary source, the first communication tunnel encrypted with the Open VPN protocol; and a second VPS operatively coupled to the first VPS via a private internet protocol (IP) scheme, the second VPS configured with WireGuard protocol to generate a WireGuard certificate, the second VPS configured to spawn a second communication tunnel encrypted with the WireGuard protocol; and the first server configured to receive a communication from the secondary source to initiate a virtual private network connection, the received communication configured to initiate the first communication tunnel to the first VPS, the first VPS configured to forward the received communication to the second VPS on a first private IP scheme, and the second VPS configured to initiate the second communication tunnel to one of the second and third servers on a second private IP scheme different from the first private IP scheme.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 10, 11, 13, 21, 22, 25, 30, 31 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over THYAGATURU (US Patent Publication No. 2021/0314359 and THYAGATURU hereinafter) in view of Mitchell et al. (US Patent Publication No. 8,051,177 and Mitchell hereinafter).
As to claims 1 and 21, THYAGATURU teaches a computer system comprising:
a first server having a hardware layer and an operating system (OS) layer (FIG. 3 … illustrates a server component);
the operating system layer comprising (i.e., …teaches in par. 22 the following: “Software layer 204 includes operating systems (OS) and hypervisors.”):
a first virtual private server (VPS) configured with a first virtual private network (VPN) protocol (i.e., …figure 3 illustrates VPS and VPN),
the first VPS configured to support a first communication tunnel encrypted with the first VPN protocol (i.e., …teaches in their Abstract the following: “…virtual private network (VPN) sessions. A VPN link and an auxiliary link (and associated sessions) are established between computing platforms to support end-to-end communication between respective application running on the platforms. The VPN link may employ a conventional VPN protocol such as TLS or IPsec, while the auxiliary link comprises a NULL encryption VPN tunnel. To transfer data, a determination is made to whether the data are encrypted or non-encrypted. Encrypted data are transferred over the auxiliary link to avoid re-encryption of the data. Non-encrypted are transferred over the VPN link. TLS and IPsec VPN agents may be used to assist in setting up the VPN and auxiliary sessions. The techniques avoid double encryption of VPN traffic, while ensuring that various types of traffic transferred between platforms is encrypted.”);
and a second VPS operatively coupled to the first VPS (i.e., …illustrates in figure 3 a Virtual components operatively coupled together),
the second VPS configured to spawn a second communication tunnel encrypted with a second communication protocol (i.e., …teaches in their Abstract the following: “…in virtual private network (VPN) sessions. A VPN link and an auxiliary link (and associated sessions) are established between computing platforms to support end-to-end communication between respective application running on the platforms. The VPN link may employ a conventional VPN protocol such as TLS or IPsec, while the auxiliary link comprises a NULL encryption VPN tunnel. To transfer data, a determination is made to whether the data are encrypted or non-encrypted. Encrypted data are transferred over the auxiliary link to avoid re-encryption of the data. Non-encrypted are transferred over the VPN link. TLS and IPsec VPN agents may be used to assist in setting up the VPN and auxiliary sessions. The techniques avoid double encryption of VPN traffic, while ensuring that various types of traffic transferred between platforms is encrypted.”).
The system of THYAGATURU does not expressly teach:
and the first server configured to initiate a VPN connection, including forward a received communication from the first communication tunnel to the second VPS on a first internet protocol (IP) scheme,
and the second VPS configured to initiate the second communication tunnel on a second IP scheme different from the first IP scheme.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Mitchell.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “and the first server configured to initiate a VPN connection, including forward a received communication from the first communication tunnel to the second VPS on a first internet protocol (IP) scheme”, Mitchell teaches as part of his claim 1 claim elements the following: “a virtual private network (VPN) with a network having a different addressing scheme, the method comprising: at a VPN media proxy having a communications interface for communicating with a first network and a second network, wherein the first network comprises a plurality of interconnected VPNs, the second network is connected to the plurality of interconnected VPNs via the first network, and the second network uses an Internet protocol (IP) addressing scheme different from a private IP network addressing scheme used by one of the plurality of interconnected VPNs:”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “and the second VPS configured to initiate the second communication tunnel on a second IP scheme different from the first IP scheme”, Mitchell teaches as part of his claim 1 claim elements the following: “a virtual private network (VPN) with a network having a different addressing scheme, the method comprising: at a VPN media proxy having a communications interface for communicating with a first network and a second network, wherein the first network comprises a plurality of interconnected VPNs, the second network is connected to the plurality of interconnected VPNs via the first network, and the second network uses an Internet protocol (IP) addressing scheme different from a private IP network addressing scheme used by one of the plurality of interconnected VPNs:”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of THYAGATURU with the teachings of Mitchell by having their system comprise a enhanced network configuring process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to configure network communication, wherein the enhanced network configuring process helps facilitate more robust device communication within the network and makes it easier to control communication access.
As to claims 2 and 11, the system of THYAGATURU and Mitchell as applied to claim 1 above teaches data communication, specifically THYAGATURU teaches a computer system of claim 1, further comprising the hardware layer configured with only two ports open (i.e., …teaches in par. 0031 the following: “Network driver will use the additional TLS sessions, in case of TLS based VPN, where the new session, e.g., with different port IDs”), wherein a first of the open ports establishes the first communication tunnel and a second of the open ports establishes the second communication tunnel (i.e., teaches in par. 0034 the following: “Network driver will use the additional TLS sessions, in case of TLS based VPN, where the new session, e.g., with different port IDs, is setup with NULL encryption ciphers to avoid double encryption.”).
As to claims 5 and 25, the system of THYAGATURU and Mitchell as applied to claim 1 above teaches data communication, specifically THYAGATURU teaches a computer system of claim 1, wherein the first and second communication tunnels create a dual obfuscated network configured to stream data until at least one of the first and second communication tunnels is disengaged (i.e., …teaches in par. 0026 the following “Diagram 300 shows two VPN paths”).
As to claims 10 and 30, THYAGATURU teaches a computer system comprising:
a first server configured to be operatively coupled to one or more second servers (i.e., …illustrates in figure 3 server/client component operatively coupled),
each of the servers having a hardware layer and an operatively coupled operating system (OS) layer (i.e., …teaches in par. 22 the following: “Software layer 204 includes operating systems (OS) and hypervisors.”);
each server operating system layer comprising: a first virtual private server (VPS) configured with a first protocol (i.e., …teaches in par. 0022 the following: “Software layer 204 also includes a TLS VPN agent 210 and an IPsec VPN agent 212.”),
the first VPS configured to generate a first communication tunnel with a secondary source (i.e., …teaches in par. 0026 the following: “Non-VPN path 318 represented the physical forwarding path between physical NICs 312 and 308. As will be recognized by those skilled in the art, while diagram 300 illustrated paths from VPN server 304 to VPN client 302, similar paths would be used for traffic originating from VPN client 302 that is destined for VPN server 304.”),
the first communication tunnel encrypted with the first protocol (i.e., …teaches in their Abstract the following: “…virtual private network (VPN) sessions. A VPN link and an auxiliary link (and associated sessions) are established between computing platforms to support end-to-end communication between respective application running on the platforms. The VPN link may employ a conventional VPN protocol such as TLS or IPsec, while the auxiliary link comprises a NULL encryption VPN tunnel. To transfer data, a determination is made to whether the data are encrypted or non-encrypted. Encrypted data are transferred over the auxiliary link to avoid re-encryption of the data. Non-encrypted are transferred over the VPN link. TLS and IPsec VPN agents may be used to assist in setting up the VPN and auxiliary sessions. The techniques avoid double encryption of VPN traffic, while ensuring that various types of traffic transferred between platforms is encrypted.”);
and a second VPS operatively coupled to the first VPS (i.e., …teaches in their Abstract the following: “…virtual private network (VPN) sessions. A VPN link and an auxiliary link (and associated sessions) are established between computing platforms to support end-to-end communication between respective application running on the platforms. The VPN link may employ a conventional VPN protocol such as TLS or IPsec, while the auxiliary link comprises a NULL encryption VPN tunnel. To transfer data, a determination is made to whether the data are encrypted or non-encrypted. Encrypted data are transferred over the auxiliary link to avoid re-encryption of the data. Non-encrypted are transferred over the VPN link. TLS and IPsec VPN agents may be used to assist in setting up the VPN and auxiliary sessions. The techniques avoid double encryption of VPN traffic, while ensuring that various types of traffic transferred between platforms is encrypted.”),
the second VPS configured with a second protocol, the second VPS configured to spawn a second communication tunnel encrypted with the second protocol (i.e., …teaches in their Abstract the following: “…virtual private network (VPN) sessions. A VPN link and an auxiliary link (and associated sessions) are established between computing platforms to support end-to-end communication between respective application running on the platforms. The VPN link may employ a conventional VPN protocol such as TLS or IPsec, while the auxiliary link comprises a NULL encryption VPN tunnel. To transfer data, a determination is made to whether the data are encrypted or non-encrypted. Encrypted data are transferred over the auxiliary link to avoid re-encryption of the data. Non-encrypted are transferred over the VPN link. TLS and IPsec VPN agents may be used to assist in setting up the VPN and auxiliary sessions. The techniques avoid double encryption of VPN traffic, while ensuring that various types of traffic transferred between platforms is encrypted.”);
and the first server configured to receive a communication from the secondary source to initiate a virtual private network (VPN) connection (i.e., …teaches in par. 0026 the following: “Non-VPN path 318 represented the physical forwarding path between physical NICs 312 and 308. As will be recognized by those skilled in the art, while diagram 300 illustrated paths from VPN server 304 to VPN client 302, similar paths would be used for traffic originating from VPN client 302 that is destined for VPN server 304.”).
The system of does not expressly teach:
the received communication configured to initiate the first communication tunnel to the first VPS,
the first VPS configured to forward the received communication to the second VPS on a first private internet protocol (IP) scheme,
and the second VPS configured to initiate the second communication tunnel to one of the one or more second servers on a second private IP scheme different from the first private IP scheme.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Mitchell.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “the received communication configured to initiate the first communication tunnel to the first VPS”, Mitchell teaches as part of his claim 1 claim elements the following: “a virtual private network (VPN) with a network having a different addressing scheme, the method comprising: at a VPN media proxy having a communications interface for communicating with a first network and a second network …”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “the first VPS configured to forward the received communication to the second VPS on a first private internet protocol (IP) scheme”, Mitchell teaches as part of his claim 1 limitation element(s) the following:“…in virtual private network (VPN) sessions. A VPN link and an auxiliary link (and associated sessions) are established between computing platforms to support end-to-end communication between respective application running on the platforms. The VPN link may employ a conventional VPN protocol such as TLS or IPsec, while the auxiliary link comprises a NULL encryption VPN tunnel. To transfer data, a determination is made to whether the data are encrypted or non-encrypted. Encrypted data are transferred over the auxiliary link to avoid re-encryption of the data. Non-encrypted are transferred over the VPN link. TLS and IPsec VPN agents may be used to assist in setting up the VPN and auxiliary sessions. The techniques avoid double encryption of VPN traffic, while ensuring that various types of traffic transferred between platforms is encrypted.”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “and the second VPS configured to initiate the second communication tunnel to one of the one or more second servers on a second private IP scheme different from the first private IP scheme”, Mitchell teaches as part of his claim 1 limitation element(s) the following:“…in virtual private network (VPN) sessions. A VPN link and an auxiliary link (and associated sessions) are established between computing platforms to support end-to-end communication between respective application running on the platforms. The VPN link may employ a conventional VPN protocol such as TLS or IPsec, while the auxiliary link comprises a NULL encryption VPN tunnel. To transfer data, a determination is made to whether the data are encrypted or non-encrypted. Encrypted data are transferred over the auxiliary link to avoid re-encryption of the data. Non-encrypted are transferred over the VPN link. TLS and IPsec VPN agents may be used to assist in setting up the VPN and auxiliary sessions. The techniques avoid double encryption of VPN traffic, while ensuring that various types of traffic transferred between platforms is encrypted.”
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of THYAGATURU with the teachings of Mitchell by having their system comprise a enhanced network configuring process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to configure network communication, wherein the enhanced network configuring process helps facilitate more robust device communication within the network and makes it easier to control communication access.
As to claim 31, the system of THYAGATURU and Mitchell as applied to claim 10 above teaches data communication, specifically THYAGATURU teaches a computer system of claim 10, further comprising each server hardware layer configured with only two ports open (i.e., …teaches in par. 0031 the following: “Network driver will use the additional TLS sessions, in case of TLS based VPN, where the new session, e.g., with different port IDs”), a first of the open ports establishes the first communication tunnel and a second of the open ports establishes the second communication tunnel (i.e., teaches in par. 0034 the following: “Network driver will use the additional TLS sessions, in case of TLS based VPN, where the new session, e.g., with different port IDs, is setup with NULL encryption ciphers to avoid double encryption.”).
As to claims 13 and 33, the system of THYAGATURU, Mitchell and Britt as applied to claim 10 above teaches data communication, specifically THYAGATURU expressly teaches a computer system of claim 10, wherein the first and second communication tunnels create a dual obfuscated network configured to stream data until at least one of the first and second communication tunnels is disengaged i.e., …teaches in par. 0026 the following “Diagram 300 shows two VPN paths”).
As to claim 22, the system of THYAGATURU and Mitchell as applied to claim 21 above teaches data communication, specifically THYAGATURU teaches a computer system of claim 21, further comprising the hardware layer configured with only two ports open (i.e., …teaches in par. 0031 the following: “Network driver will use the additional TLS sessions, in case of TLS based VPN, where the new session, e.g., with different port IDs”),
wherein a first of the open ports establishes the first communication tunnel and a second of the open ports establishes the second communication tunnel (i.e., teaches in par. 0034 the following: “Network driver will use the additional TLS sessions, in case of TLS based VPN, where the new session, e.g., with different port IDs, is setup with NULL encryption ciphers to avoid double encryption.”).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 12, 15, 23, 24, 32 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over THYAGATURU in view of Mitchell as applied to claims 1, 10, 21 and 30 above and further in view of Britt et al. (US Patent No. 10,862,948 and Britt hereinafter).
As to claims 3 and 23, the system of THYAGATURU, Mitchell and Britt as applied to claim 2 above teaches data communication, specifically neither THYAGATURU nor Mitchell expressly teaches a computer system of claim 2, further comprising the first server operatively coupled to two or more second servers, including: each of the two or more second servers including corresponding hardware and operating system layers, the operating system layers configured with corresponding first VPS and second VPS, with each first VPS configured with the first VPN protocol and each second VPS configured with the second communication protocol.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Britt.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “the first server operatively coupled to two or more second servers”, Britt teaches in col. 4, lines 20-40 “virtual data center includes various virtual servers and/or virtual desktops configured according to virtual server settings 152 in a respective settings file 150 for the account. …The virtual servers and/or virtual desktops are connected according to network layout and connections 154 specified in the respective settings file 150 for the account.”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “including: each of the two or more second servers including corresponding hardware and operating system layer”, teaches in col. 4 lines 55-65 the following: “Computing resources are allocated to implement the virtual servers/desktops at blocks 206 or 208. The computing resources may include, for example, processing resources (e.g., processing cores and processing time), memory resources, data storage resources, and/or network resources. In some implementations, an allocation of computing resources may be specified in the settings file for an account.”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “the operating system layers configured with corresponding first VPS and second VPS, with each first VPS configured with the first VPN protocol and each second VPS configured with the second communication protocol”, teaches in col. 5 lines 30-45 the following: “The virtual network includes network connections to connect the virtual desktops and virtual servers in a network. The virtual network may also include various network devices or channels, such as routers, firewalls, and/or virtual private network (VPN) channels,”. Further teaches in col. 6, lines 55-65 & col. 7 lines 1-15 the following: “one or more VPN tunnels connecting one or more end-user networks to the virtual data center.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of THYAGATURU and Mitchell with the teachings of Britt by having their system comprise a enhanced virtual communication process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to properly communicate with multiple virtual environment(s), wherein the enhanced virtual communication process helps facilitate device communication within the network and makes it easier to configure the devices for network communication.
As to claims 4 and 24, the system of THYAGATURU, Mitchell and Britt as applied to claim 3 above teaches data communication, specifically neither THYAGATURU nor Mitchell expressly teaches a computer system of claim 3, further comprising a randomization algorithm configured to interface with the initiation of the second communication tunnel, and further configured to randomly select distribution of traffic to one of the two or more second servers.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Britt.
Britt teaches in col. 6 lines 30-40 the following: “a virtual load balancer that routes traffic to balance traffic load”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of THYAGATURU and Mitchell with the teachings of Britt by having their system comprise a enhanced virtual communication process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to properly communicate with multiple virtual environment(s), wherein the enhanced virtual communication process helps facilitate device communication within the network and makes it easier to configure the devices for network communication.
As to claims 12 and 32, the system of THYAGATURU, Mitchell and Britt as applied to claim 10 above teaches data communication, specifically neither THYAGATURU nor Mitchell expressly teaches a computer system of claim 10, wherein the second VPS further comprises a randomization algorithm configured to interface with the initiation of the second communication tunnel to randomly select distribution of traffic to a third server.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Britt.
Britt teaches in col. 6 lines 30-40 the following: “a virtual load balancer that routes traffic to balance traffic load”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of THYAGATURU and Mitchell with the teachings of Britt by having their system comprise a enhanced virtual communication process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to properly communicate with multiple virtual environment(s), wherein the enhanced virtual communication process helps facilitate device communication within the network and makes it easier to configure the devices for network communication.
As to claims 15 and 35, the system of THYAGATURU, Mitchell and Britt as applied to claim 10 above teaches data communication, specifically neither THYAGATURU nor Mitchell expressly teaches a computer system of claim 10, wherein creation of the second communication tunnel further comprises the first VPS of each of the servers to establish a mesh network based on the second protocol.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Britt.
Britt illustrates a mesh type network in fig. 1.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of THYAGATURU and Mitchell with the teachings of Britt by having their system comprise a enhanced virtual communication process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to properly communicate with multiple virtual environment(s), wherein the enhanced virtual communication process helps facilitate device communication within the network and makes it easier to configure the devices for network communication.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 19, 20, 28, 29, 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over THYAGATURU in view of Mitchell as applied to claims 1, 10, 21 and 30 above and further in view of Norbutas et al. (US Patent No. 11,050,587 and Norbutas hereinafter).
As to claims 8, 20, 28 and 40, the system of THYAGATURU, Mitchell and Norbutas as applied to claim 1 above teaches data communication, specifically neither THYAGATURU nor Mitchell teaches a computer system of claim 1, wherein the second communication protocol utilizes a WireGuard protocol.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Norbutas.
Norbutas teaches in col. 9 lines 10 the following: “Wireguard protocol, a part of another VPN product”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of THYAGATURU and Mitchell with the teachings of Norbutas by having their system comprise a enhanced communication protocol process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to secure communication, wherein the enhanced communication protocol process helps facilitate proper device communication within the network and makes it easier to configure the device communication for security.
As to claims 9, 19, 29 and 39, the system of THYAGATURU and Mitchell as applied to claim 1 above teaches data communication, specifically neither THYAGATURU nor Mitchell teaches a computer system of claim 1, wherein the first communication protocol utilizes an OpenVPN protocol.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Norbutas.
Norbutas teaches in col. 9 lines 1- 10 the following: “OpenVPN protocol”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of THYAGATURU and Mitchell with the teachings of Norbutas by having their system comprise a enhanced communication protocol process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to secure communication, wherein the enhanced communication protocol process helps facilitate proper device communication within the network and makes it easier to configure the device communication for security.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant’s recital of, “wherein one of the two or more second servers is a transit server configured to select an exit server from among the servers in the network, the transit server configured to generate a third communication tunnel between an entry server and the exit server, the third communication tunnel encrypted with the second communication protocol, and the exit server configured to generate a fourth communication tunnel to a secondary device, the fourth communication tunnel being encrypted with the first VPN protocol.”.
The examiner notes that dependent claim 7 depends on dependent claim 6 and is therefore allowable by way of its dependency. The examiner notes that dependent claim 27 depends on dependent claim 26 and is therefore allowable by way of its dependency.
Claims 14 and 34 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
“wherein one of the one or more servers is a transit server configured to select an exit server from among the servers that is not the first server, the transit server configured to generate a third communication tunnel between the first server and the exit server, the third communication tunnel being encrypted with the second protocol, and the exit server configured to generate a fourth communication tunnel to the secondary source, the fourth communication tunnel being encrypted with the first protocol”.
Claims 16 and 36 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: “the secondary source to select an exit server from among the servers through selection of a first certificate encrypted with the first protocol and a second certificate encrypted with the second protocol”.
The examiner notes that dependent claim 17 depends on dependent claim 16 and is therefore allowable by way of its dependency. The examiner notes that dependent claim 37 depends on dependent claim 36 and is therefore allowable by way of its dependency. The examiner notes that dependent claim 18 depends on dependent claim 17 and is therefore allowable by way of its dependency. The examiner notes that dependent claim 38 depends on dependent claim 37 and is therefore allowable by way of its dependency.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN F WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-3826.
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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN F WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights