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 .
1. The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S.C not included in this section can be found in the prior office action.
2. The prior office actions are incorporated herein by reference. In particular, the observations with respect to claim language, and response to previously presented arguments.
No claims have been amended.
No claims have been added.
No claims have been cancelled.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
With regards to Double Patenting Rejection of the pending claims applicant responded ”Applicant will defer the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with MPEP § 804 until such time that these provisional double patenting rejections remain as the only outstanding rejections.” Therefore, Double Patenting Rejection of the claims is maintained.
Regarding prior art rejection of the independent claims 1, 8 and 15 , Applicant argues “Yamada fails to disclose or suggest "transmitting, by the user device based at least in part on utilizing the identification information to authenticate the VPN service provider as a transmitter of the response, a service request as recited in claim 1. Hengeveld fails to remedy these deficiencies in Yamada, and nor does the Office Action so allege.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts the authentication in communication between servers and client device is also disclosed by Hengeveld “VPN header 207. VPN header 207 is optional, and may contain further information of relevance to the relationship between the VPN client 119 and the VPN server 141. Such information may include, for example, cryptographic authentication information, cryptographic key identification, and/or other information associated with the specific implementation of the VPN.” Hengeveld: para. 26.
Applicant arguments with regards to prior art rejection of dependent claims are based on the claims dependencies from the independent claims. Therefore, Examiner refers Applicant to the above response with regards to the independent claims.to the corresponding arguments, above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims 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); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).[AltContent: rect]
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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/ patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/ patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12120094.
With respect to claim 1 of the instant application, claim 1 of the Patent No. 12120094 disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
With respect to claim 8 of the instant application, claim 8 of the Patent No. 12120094 disclose all the limitations of claim 8. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
With respect to claim 15 of the instant application, claim 115 of the Patent No. 12120094 disclose all the limitations of claim 15. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
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 (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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMADA; Asahiko et al. US 20150188916 (hereinafter Yamada) in view of Hengeveld; Thomas A. US 20130318345 ( hereinafter Hengeveld).
As per claim 1, Yamada teaches: A method in a virtual private network (VPN) service environment, the method comprising: transmitting, by a user device, a connection request to a VPN service provider for obtaining VPN services (“The user terminal includes a display unit configured to display, for the user, a VPN connection request to (Communication unit, VPN service provider of), the authentication server Yamada: fig. 1, VPN connection request Yamada: para. 16). receiving, by the user device from the VPN service provider, a response to the connection request, (" The communication unit of authentication server 20 transmits the ID and the token generated in ST16 to the user terminal 10 (ST21)." Yamada: para. 94); and transmitting, by the user device based at least in part on utilizing the identification information to authenticate the VPN service provider as a transmitter of the response, to a VPN server, that is associated with the VPN service provider, a service request for requesting the VPN services ("The VPN connection server 50 receives the token from the authentication information management DB 40 (ST28). Then, the token verification unit 54 verifies whether this token matches the token received in ST24 from the user terminal 10 (ST29). If these tokens match each other, the VPN connection server 50 transmits a signal representing an authentication success to the user terminal 10. If these tokens do not match each other, the VPN connection server 50 transmits a signal representing an authentication failure to the user terminal 10 (ST30)" Yamada : para. 98) and also, ("The user terminal 10 receives the authentication result from the VPN connection server 50 (ST31). If the received authentication result represents a success, the VPN connection client function unit 17 establishes a VPN connection with the VPN connection server function unit 55 of the VPN connection server 50 (ST32), and ends the VPN connection authentication processing (ST33). "Yamada: para. 98-99).
Yamada does not explicitly teach; however, Hengeveld discloses: the response including a header that contains identification information to identify the VPN service provider (IP header 205 comprises source and destination addresses (identification information) Hengeveld: para. 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yamada with the teachings of Hengeveld to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to indicate connection with the intended server.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Yamada teaches: transmitting the service request to the VPN server based at least in part on utilizing server information that is received in association with the response and that identifies the VPN server ("An ID/token transmission function of, when an authentication result, ID, and token from the authentication server 20 are received, transmitting, from the transmission content generation unit 16 to the VPN connection server 50, transmission contents that are generated by the transmission content generation unit 16 based on the ID and the token.". Yamada: para. 49).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Yamada teaches: the identification information identifies an existing association between the VPN service provider and the user device (Yamada: para. 28).
As per claim 8, this claim defines a device that corresponds to the method of claim 1 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 10, this claim defines a device that corresponds to the method of claim 3 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 3.
As per claim 14, this claim defines a device that corresponds to the method of claim 7 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 7. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 7.
As per claim 15, this claim defines a computer-readable medium storing instructions corresponding to method claim 1 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 17, this claim defines a computer-readable medium storing instructions corresponding to method claim 3 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 3. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Hengeveld and further in view of LEE; Seok-Min et al. US 20130081132 (hereinafter Lee).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Yamada and Hengeveld does not teach; however, Lee discloses: receiving the response includes receiving the response that includes a payload containing server information to identify the VPN server ("The VPN connection unit 230 transmits authentication data and an authentication request to the authentication server 120, which may send the authentication request to the VPN server 140 (S310). The authentication data includes identification information (ID) of the VPN server 140 to be accessed. Then, the authentication server 120 may access the VPN server 140 using an ID of the VPN server 140 included in the authentication data and request authentication for the user device 110 (S310)." Lee: para. 59).
Therefore, 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 combination of Yamada and Hengeveld with the teachings of Lee to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to connect to a intended server.
As per claim 9, this claim defines a device that corresponds to the method of claim 2 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 2.
As per claim 16, this claim defines a computer-readable medium storing instructions corresponding to method claim 2 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Hengeveld and further in view of Hannel; Clifford Lee et al. US 7580919 (hereinafter Hannel).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Yamada and Hengeveld does not teach; however, Hannel discloses: determining, by the user device, that the header included in the response is a custom header (Hannel: col. 11. Lines 58-61).
Therefore, 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 combination of Yamada and Hengeveld with the teachings of Hannel to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to allow the recipient to verify the message content hasn't been changed.
As per claim 11, this claim defines a device that corresponds to the method of claim 4 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 4. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 4.
As per claim 18, this claim defines a computer-readable medium storing instructions corresponding to method claim 4 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 4. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 4.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Hengeveld and further in view of Poeppelmann; Thomas et al. US 20220029833 (hereinafter Poeppelmann).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Yamada and Hengeveld does not teach; however, Poeppelmann disclose: determining, by the user device, that the response is a valid response based at least in part on a timing of when the user device receives the response (Poeppelmann: para. 91).
Therefore, 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 combination of Yamada and Hengeveld with the teachings of Poeppelmann to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention to relate the validity of a message with a time duration.
As per claim 12, this claim defines a device that corresponds to the method of claim 5 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 5. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 5.
As per claim 19, this claim defines a computer-readable medium storing instructions corresponding to method claim 5 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 5. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 5.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Hengeveld and further in view of KRAELING; MARK et al. US 20150210302 (hereinafter Kraeling).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Yamada and Hengeveld does not teach; however, Kraeling disclose: selectively inspecting, by the user device, information included in the response to determine a hash function or an encryption algorithm utilized by the VPN service provider to determine the response (the system selectively performs integrity check, [e.g., comparing the hash values]. Kraeling: para. 88 ).
Therefore, 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 combination of Yamada and Hengeveld with the teachings of Kraeling to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention to check the authenticity of the message.
As per claim 13, this claim defines a device that corresponds to the method of
claim 6 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 6. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 6.
As per claim 20, this claim defines a computer-readable medium storing instructions corresponding to method claim 6 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 6. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20170054564 A1
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHODRAT JAMSHIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1956. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 5712723862. 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.
/GHODRAT JAMSHIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights