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 .
Claims 1-8 have been examined.
Objection
Claims are objected to because of the following grammatical and/or typographical error: Claim 7, line 2-3, “to execute: configuring…”; Lines 2-5, “to execute:… converting….; Claim 8, lines 1-2, “comprising: causing”; Lines 1-4, “comprising:…converting…”
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim language in the following claims is not clearly understood:
As per claim 3, line 3, it is unclear what is meant by ISAKMP (i.e., please expand on the acronym/abbreviation).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to software per se. Particularly, claim 7 is directed to a program (i.e., software)…, thus the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
It is noted that the recited “one or more processors” in claim 1 is interpreted as hardware processor(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goldschlag et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0162431 (hereinafter Goldschlag).
As per claim 1, Goldschlag teaches the invention as claimed comprising:
a tunnel start point unit, including one or more processors, disposed at one side of a tunnel through which packets flow ([53][45[46]; fig. 4, e.g., client disposed at one side of VPN);
a plurality of tunnel endpoint units, including one or more processors, disposed at the other side of the tunnel ([45][46]; fig. 4, e.g., services disposed at the other side of the VPN);
a first distributed processing unit, including one or more processors, that is disposed in the tunnel and configures a VPN with the tunnel start point unit ([45][46][53][55]; fig. 4, e.g., client VPN concentrator configures a VPN with client); and
a second distributed processing unit, including one or more processors, that is connected to the plurality of tunnel endpoint units ([45][46]; fig. 4, e.g., service VPN concentrator connected to services).
As per claim 2, Goldschlag teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Goldschlag further teach wherein the first distributed processing unit is configured to distribute packets to the plurality of tunnel endpoint units ([71]; fig. 4).
As per claim 4, Goldschlag teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Goldschlag further teach wherein the first distributed processing unit is configured to convert a destination IP address of the packets from a temporary IP address establishing a VPN endpoint into an IP address of any of the tunnel endpoint units in relaying the packets to the tunnel endpoint units ([64][70][71]).
As per claim 5, Goldschlag teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Goldschlag further teach wherein the first distributed processing unit is configured to convert a source address of the packets from an IP address of any of the tunnel endpoint units into a temporary IP address establishing a VPN endpoint in relaying the packets to the tunnel start point unit ([70][71], e.g., convert source IP address of outer encapsulation of the service endpoint into IP address of outer encapsulation of VPN between client VPN concentrator and VPN client endpoint).
As per claim 6, Goldschlag teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Goldschlag further teach wherein the second distributed processing unit is configured to relay packets to any of the plurality of tunnel endpoint units [70].
As per claim 7, Goldschlag teaches the invention as claimed for a program for causing a computer disposed in a tunnel through which packets flow to execute:
configuring a VPN with a tunnel start point unit disposed at one side of the tunnel ([45][46][53][55]; fig. 4, e.g., client VPN concentrator configures a VPN with client); and
converting a destination IP address of the packets received from the tunnel start point unit from a temporary IP address establishing a VPN endpoint into an IP address of any of tunnel endpoint units disposed at the other side of the tunnel ([70], e.g., changing the destination IP address of received packets from a client of the VPN from virtual IP address of ASR into IP address of service VPN concentrator/IP address of services).
As per claim 8, Goldschlag teaches the invention as claimed comprising:
causing a distributed processing unit disposed in a tunnel through which packets flow to configure a VPN with a tunnel start point unit disposed at one side of the tunnel ([45][46][53][55]; fig. 4, e.g., client VPN concentrator configures a VPN with client); and
converting a destination IP address of the packets received from the tunnel start point unit from a temporary IP address establishing a VPN endpoint into an IP address of any of tunnel endpoint units disposed at the other side of the tunnel ([70], e.g., changing the destination IP address of received packets from a client of the VPN from virtual IP address of ASR into IP address of service VPN concentrator/IP address of services).
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 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldschlag.
As per claim 3, Goldschlag teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Although Goldschlag teaches wherein the first distributed processing unit is configured to perform endpoint processing on a message ([70][71]), however, Goldschlag is silent in regards to an ISAKMP message.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include processing of any type of messages including an ISAKMP message in Goldschlag’s system because by doing so it would allow Goldschlag’s system to establish security associations and manage cryptographic keys in secure network communication and VPNs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
be directed to Philip Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-3967. The examiner can normally be
reached on 6a-3p M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Glenton Burgess can be reached on 571-272-3949. 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.
/PHILIP C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights