DETAILED ACTION
Office Action Summary
Claims 12/19/2024 are pending in the instant application.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 USC § 112.
The drawings are objected to.
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 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they show charts with numbers and it would be easier to follow the drawings if there were legends identifying the different boxes. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Analysis – 35 USC § 112 (f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a certification creation module adapted to suspend” in claims 7 and 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the claim is rejected under 112, 2nd paragraph, for failing to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure is used to perform the claimed function. Please also see the 112, 2nd paragraph, rejection below for further details.
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 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 USC § 112 b.
Claim limitation “a certification creation module adapted to suspend” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yiu Leung Lee (US Pre-Grant Publication No: 2017/0078285) (art furnished in IDS 12/19/2024) hereinafter referred to as D1 in view of Ade Lee et al. (US Pre-Gran Publication No. 2011/0167483) hereinafter referred to as D2.
As per claims 1 and 7-9, D1 teaches … for suspending a first certification token corresponding to a first certificate (CERT1_CPE), (D1, paragraph 43: "expired identity tokens may bc denied authentication")
the first certification token for authenticating the establishment of a connection between an item of equipment connected to at least one communication network and at least one server of a service provider, (D1, paragraph 49: "authenticates the CPE device based on the identity token")
the first certification token and the first certificate being generated from a hash (HASHCPE) of a physical address of the item of equipment, a certificate (CertDHCP) associated with a network address configuration server and at least one network address allocated to the item of equipment by the network address configuration server, (D1, paragraph 44: "identity token [...] a hash of a CPE IP address, CPE MAC address" with paragraph 56: "identity token 430, in this example, encodes [...] a MAC address 440 for a CPE device, and an IP address 442 for the CPE device [...] digital certificate associated with the interface device through which the CPE device was provisioned with network configuration data")
the method comprising the following implemented by a certificate creation module: suspending the first certification token triggered by obtaining an item of information relating to a condition for suspending the first certification token, and (D1, paragraph 43: "identity token may also encode a timestamp that indicates an expiration date of the identity token. CPE devices that provide expired identity tokens may be denied authentication")
But D1 does not teach transmitting, to a domain name server, a request for suspending an association established between, on one hand, the first certificate and the first certification token and, on the other hand, at least one domain name.
However, (D2, [0084] and [0034]-[0035], teaches suspending tokens as well as reason for suspension as well as using a server for managing the tokens)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the invention of D1 by adding a reason to suspend token as shown in D2 because suspending token is well known in the art and a mere design choice on whether to suspend and reinstate tokens or terminate and issue new tokens. (See for example: (Qiu et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication No. 2009/0031131) figure 12 and [0085]) or (Miu et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/005893) [0268] and figure 12A)) or (Palanisamy (US Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0312038) [0088]) just to name a few references that teach suspending tokens.)
As per claim 2, D1 in view of D2 teaches the method for suspending a certification token according to claim 1 further comprising: cancelling the suspension of the first certification token triggered by obtaining an item of information indicating that the condition for suspending the first certification token is no longer satisfied, and transmitting, to the domain name server, a request for cancelling the suspension of the association established between the first certificate, the first certification token and the at least one domain name. (D2, [0084] and [0034]-[0035])
As per claim 3, D1 in view of D2 teaches the method for suspending a certification token according to claim 1 further comprising the following when the condition of suspending the first certification token is accompanied by a request to replace the first certification token: generating a second certificate (CERT2_CPE) associated with the item of equipment and a corresponding second certification token, transmitting, to the domain name server, a request to associate, on one hand, the second certificate and the second certification token with, on the other hand, the domain name previously associated with the first certificate and the corresponding first certification token, and transmitting the second certification token to the item of equipment. (D2, [0084] and [0034]-[0035])
As per claim 4, D1 in view of D2teaches the method for suspending a certification token according to claim 3, wherein the second certification token offers restricted access to the resources of the server of a service provider. ((D1, paragraph 43 and D2, [0084] and [0034]-[0035])
As per claim 5, D1 in view of D2teaches the method for suspending a certification token according to claim 1, further comprising transmitting, to the network address configuration server, a request to provide, to the equipment, at least one network address pointing to a host machine acting as a fictitious server of the provider. (D2, [0084] and [0034]-[0035])
As per claim 6, D1 in view of D2teaches the method for suspending a certification token according to claim 1 wherein the condition for suspending the first certification token belongs to a group comprising: a request for suspending the first certification token, the suspension request being issued by the item of equipment, a request for suspending the first certification token, the suspension request being issued by an item of equipment of the network, an expiration of an allocation time of the network address allocated to the item of equipment, an expiration of a lifetime of the first certification token, a use conflict in an addressing plan, an item of information relating to a compromise of the first certification token, and an item of information relating to a hacking of the first certification token. (D2, [0084] and [0034]-[0035])
Other Art of Record
Qiu et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication No. 2009/0031131) teaches “an enrolled status, which means the certificates have been installed on the smart card; or a lost or on hold status, which means that the token has been suspended, and any suspended or revoked token may also have an attribute to show the reason why the token status was changed. In another embodiment, the modifying request is a request to set one or more polices for the tokens in the token-related entries.”
Miu et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/005893) [0268] and figure 12A teaches “The certificate authority also may be configured to revoke or suspend the token held by a party. An example of a certificate authority may include, for example, a financial institution (e.g., a bank, a credit union, an investment company, a mutual fund company, a payment brokerage company, a credit card company), a government agency (e.g., The Social Security Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services), a facility manager, or an educational institution. In one work flow, an associated party may apply for a token at a particular certificate authority. Each certificate authority may administer a corresponding set of rules of processing the applications to determine whether an applicant is properly identified. The scope of permissions associated with an applicant may specify access and permissions to a particular online account or a physical building, and/or a duration of privileges for an applicant.”
Palanisamy (US Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0312038) [0088] teaches “perform the requested life-cycle operation on a given token, and update the corresponding associations in token registry 404. Examples of life-cycle operation may include a token activation operation to activate an inactive, suspended, or temporarily locked token and its associations; a token de-activation operation to temporarily lock or suspend a token; a cancel token operation to permanently mark a token and its associations as deleted to prevent any future transactions, etc. In some embodiments, a deleted token may be used during returns/chargebacks if the same token was used to submit the corresponding original transactions.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMON P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3906. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (7AM-4PM).
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, Catherine Thiaw can be reached on (571) 272-1183. 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.
/SIMON P KANAAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407
Prosecution Insights