DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-28 in the reply filed on 2/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
Abstract
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is longer than 150 words in length. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 and 27-28 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 recites the limitation "the other routes" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 2, in addition to inheriting the deficiencies of Claim 1, Claim 2 recites the limitation "the other routes" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claims 3-8, 10-16 and 27-28, Dependent Claims 3-8, 10-16 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for inheriting the deficiencies of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, in addition to inheriting the deficiencies of Claim 1, Claim 9 recites the limitation "the flight plans of the unmanned aerial vehicles" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17-18, 20, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Denecheau et al (“Denecheau”, US 20080080522).
Regarding Claim 17, Denecheau teaches a computer implemented method of transmitting data through a network from a source node to a destination node via a plurality of intermediate nodes, the method being performed by one or more of the intermediate nodes in the network to facilitate the transmission of data through the network from a source node to a destination node via a plurality of intermediate nodes, the method comprising (Fig. 1, elements {102, 104, 106, 108, 132}, par 28; The source node is the first node. The destination node is one of the downstream neighbor nodes that the datagrams are being sent to. The intermediate nodes are the downstream neighbor nodes that pass the datagram along to the destination node.):
receiving a datagram, the datagram being encrypted using a key associated with the intermediate node (par 13-14; par 48; par 51; par 53);
decrypting the datagram using the key to create a decrypted datagram, the decrypted datagram comprising a plurality of encapsulated datagrams, each of the encapsulated datagrams being encrypted with a key associated with another node and being associated with respective routing information (par 13-14; par 48; par 51; par 53; The encrypted datagrams are deciphered (decrypted). The routing information is the destination IP address.);
transmitting each of the encapsulated datagrams on to a different respective node in accordance with the respective routing information (par 13-14; par 48; par 51; par 53; The encrypted datagrams are deciphered (decrypted). The routing information is the destination IP address. The datagrams are routed across the different nodes of the ring topology.).
Regarding Claim 18, Denecheau teaches the method of claim 17.
Denecheau further teaches wherein the datagram is received from the source node (Fig. 1, elements {102, 104, 106, 108, 132}, par 28; par 13-14; par 48; par 51; par 53; The source node is the first node. The destination node is one of the downstream neighbor nodes that the datagrams are being sent to. The intermediate nodes are the downstream neighbor nodes that pass the datagram along to the destination node.).
Regarding Claim 20, Denecheau teaches the method of claim 17.
Denecheau further teaches wherein the datagram is received from another one of the intermediate nodes (Fig. 1, elements {102, 104, 106, 108, 132}, par 28; par 13-14; par 48; par 51; par 53; The source node is the first node. The destination node is one of the downstream neighbor nodes that the datagrams are being sent to. The intermediate nodes are the downstream neighbor nodes that pass the datagram along to the destination node.).
Regarding Claim 26, Denecheau teaches a network node configured to act as an intermediate node in a network for facilitating the transmission of data through the network from a source node to a destination via a plurality of intermediate nodes by performing a method according to claim 17 (Fig. 1, elements {102, 104, 106, 108, 132}, par 28; par 13-14; par 48; par 51; par 53; The source node is the first node. The destination node is one of the downstream neighbor nodes that the datagrams are being sent to. The intermediate nodes are the downstream neighbor nodes that pass the datagram along to the destination node.).
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.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denecheau in view of Tai et al (“Tai”, US 5841976).
Regarding Claim 19, Denecheau teaches the method of claim 18.
Denecheau does not explicitly teach wherein the intermediate node is provided by a satellite.
Tai teaches wherein the intermediate node is provided by a satellite (Col. 11 lines 53-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Denecheau with the satellite connection of Tai because it allows for global coverage to a network, that can be used as backup in case the main network is unavailable.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denecheau in view of Hardy et al (“Hardy”, US 20180234164).
Regarding Claim 21, Denecheau teaches the method of claim 17.
Denecheau does not explicitly teach wherein the intermediate node is provided by an unmanned aerial vehicle.
Hardy teaches wherein the intermediate node is provided by an unmanned aerial vehicle (par 21; The unmanned aerial vehicle is one of the drones.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Denecheau with the multi-drone mesh network of Hardy because it allows for utilization for disaster response (Hardy; par 21) and can be used as a backup network in case the main network is unavailable.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denecheau in view of Ransom et al (“Ransom”, US 20090164663).
Regarding Claim 22, Denecheau teaches the method of claim 17.
Denecheau does not explicitly teach wherein the key is a symmetric key shared between the intermediate node and the source node.
Ransom teaches wherein the key is a symmetric key shared between the intermediate node and the source node (par 62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Denecheau with the symmetric encryption of Ransom because symmetric encryption provides fast encryption using fewer resources.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denecheau in view of Rahman et al (“Rahman”, US 20220174095).
Regarding Claim 23, Denecheau teaches the method of claim 17.
Denecheau further teaches wherein the datagram and the encapsulated datagrams are respectively received and transmitted using quantum channels.
Denecheau does not explicitly teach (data) received and transmitted using quantum channels.
Rahman teaches (data) received and transmitted using quantum channels (Fig. 2B, elements {104A, 104B}, par 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Denecheau with the quantum channels of Rahman because it allows for the use of quantum physics to protect data by making it more difficult for hackers to intercept data (Rahman; par 2).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denecheau in view of Mankovski et al (“Mankovski”, US 20130305046).
Regarding Claim 24, Denecheau teaches the method of claim 17.
Denecheau does not explicitly teach wherein the intermediate node is one of a plurality of virtual network nodes provided by the same physical network node, wherein each of the virtual network nodes is separately identifiable and associated with their own respective key.
Mankovski teaches wherein the intermediate node is one of a plurality of virtual network nodes provided by the same physical network node (par 18),
wherein each of the virtual network nodes is separately identifiable and associated with their own respective key (par 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Denecheau with the cloud infrastructure of Mankovski because it allows for the access a large number of scalable resources without having to manage and provision those resources.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 and 27-28 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 25 is 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:
In interpreting the currently amended claims, in light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of record.
Regarding Claims 1-16 and 27-28, the closest prior art of record Denecheau et al (“US 20080080522) in view of CRABTREE et al (US 20170127147) in further view of DEISHI (US 20090327730) and in even further view of Sudhakar et al (US 20120183145) does not teach a computer implemented method of transmitting data through a network, performed by a source node to transmit data to a destination node via a plurality of intermediate nodes, the method comprising: splitting the data into a plurality of shares using a secret sharing algorithm; determining a respective route through the network to the destination node for each of the plurality of shares, each route comprising a plurality of intermediate nodes via which that share is to be transmitted, wherein at least two of the routes are different from each other and at least a first intermediate node of each route is common to the other routes; constructing a plurality of datagrams for conveying the plurality of shares through the network along their respective routes, each datagram being intended for processing by a respective intermediate node and being encrypted with a key associated with that intermediate node, each datagram comprising a payload and routing information for instructing the respective intermediate node to forward data contained in the payload for conveying one or more of the shares along their respective routes towards the destination node, wherein: the portion of the respective routes of the one or more shares prior to the respective intermediate node are common to each other; each datagram other than an initial datagram intended for the first intermediate node is encapsulated within the payload of a preceding datagram intended for a preceding intermediate node on the respective routes of the one or more shares; the payload of at least one of the datagrams comprises a plurality of encapsulated datagrams; and the routing information of the at least one of the datagrams instructs the respective intermediate node to transmit the plurality of encapsulated datagrams on to different respective intermediate nodes in the network; and transmitting the initial datagram to the first intermediate node.
Regarding Claim 25, the closest prior art of record Denecheau et al (“US 20080080522) in view of CRABTREE et al (US 20170127147) in further view of DEISHI (US 20090327730) and in even further view of Sudhakar et al (US 20120183145) does not teach a computer implemented method of transmitting data through a network from a source node to a destination node via a plurality of intermediate nodes, the method being performed by one or more of the intermediate nodes in the network to facilitate the transmission of data through the network from a source node to a destination node via a plurality of intermediate nodes, the method comprising: receiving a datagram, the datagram being encrypted using a key associated with the intermediate node; decrypting the datagram using the key to create a decrypted datagram, the decrypted datagram comprising a plurality of encapsulated datagrams, each of the encapsulated datagrams being encrypted with a key associated with another node and being associated with respective routing information; transmitting each of the encapsulated datagrams on to a different respective node in accordance with the respective routing information; wherein the received datagram is a partial datagram and comprises instructions for instructing the intermediate node to combine one or more shares conveyed by that partial datagram with one or more shares conveyed by at least one other datagram in order to reconstruct the datagram, the method further comprising: receiving a further datagram from a different intermediate node; and combining one or more shares conveyed by the further datagram with one or more shares conveyed by the received datagram to reconstruct the datagram.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CRABTREE et al (US 20170127147), Abstract - The invention presents a method of generating a multicast stream for transporting video content such as live TV. First, the video content is encoded, and segmented into temporal chunks. Each chunk is then encapsulated in one or more RTP pacets, depending on the size of the chunk, and each RTP packet is marked with a chunk marker to indicate which of the packets the boundaries between chunks lie. The multicast stream is then generated by encapsulating the RTP packets, preferably using UDP in IP packets. The chunk marker is provided for by a special field in the RTP payload header. The chunk marker can be a chunk index or a chunk offset. Both, individually and in combination, can be used to determine the boundary between chunks.
DEISHI (US 20090327730), Abstract - To provide an apparatus and a method for encrypted communication processing having a high communication speed in inter-node communication on a network capable of performing effective encrypted communication with improved security without losing the high speed. In the inter-node communication on the network, a plurality of shared encryption keys are first set and are switched arbitrarily for each packet to be transmitted, thus there is no need to repeat the handshaking for changing, whenever needed, the encryption keys to be used.
Sudhakar et al (US 20120183145), Abstract - Techniques for assuring a receiver's non repudiation of a communication are provided via cooperation with a secure device. A secure device operates within a local environment of a receiver and exchanges certificates with a sender via the receiver. The sender encrypts data in a communication with the receiver. Separately, the sender sends an encrypted version of a decryption key to the receiver. The receiver presents the encrypted version of the key to the secure device and the secure device supplies the decryption key for use by the receiver to decrypt the previously sent encrypted data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQIUL AMIN CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at 571-272-3964. 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.
/RAQIUL A CHOUDHURY/Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights