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 .
This office correspondence is in response to the amendment filed on July 20, 2026. Applicant elects Group I (1-4) without traverse as per Requirement for Restriction/Election. Claims 5-11 are withdrawn from considerations. Claims 12-19 are newly added.
Claims 1-4, and 12-19 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/03/2025 (3) was filed after the mailing date of the instant application dated on 09/24/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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).
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 1-4, and 12-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,699. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARNES et al. (US Publication 2012/0320921) hereafter BARNES, in view of Suzuki et al. (US Publication 2007/0091359) hereafter Suzuki.
As per claim 1, BARNES discloses a method comprising: receiving, over a first network, a first stream of TCP packets (paragraphs 86, 91, 96: TCP packet header information); converting, by at least one processor or FPGA, the first stream of TCP packets into a stream of bytes (paragraphs 97,120, 135: streaming in and out of the buffer line); processing the stream of bytes (paragraphs 108-109, 135-136: processing of bytes); after processing the stream of bytes, converting the stream of bytes to a second stream of TCP packets (paragraphs 97, 119, 135-136); and sending, over a second network, the second stream of TCP packets (paragraphs 78-79, 135-136: performing various network processing operations). Although, Palmieri discloses conversion to another format, but fail to expressly disclose converting the stream of bytes to a second stream of TCP packets and sending, over a second network.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Suzuki discloses the claimed limitation of converting the stream of bytes to a second stream of TCP packets and sending, over a second network (paragraphs 34-35, 117-118).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Suzukis’ teaching of encrypting and transmitting of the content with BARNES. One would be motivated to enhance fast processing of packet transmission accordingly with TCP processing of secure connection.
As per claim 2, BARNES discloses the method wherein the second stream of TCP packets is sent to a remote storage device (paragraphs 99, 100).
As per claim 3, BARNES discloses the method wherein processing the stream of bytes (paragraphs 124-125, 188). Although, BARNES discloses stream of processing, but fail to expressly disclose wherein processing the stream of bytes comprises encryption or decryption.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Suzuki discloses the claimed limitation of wherein processing the stream of bytes comprises encryption or decryption (paragraphs 79, 116-118).
The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 3.
As per claim 4, BARNES discloses the method wherein processing the stream of bytes comprises processing file data (paragraphs 96-97, 124-125).
As per claim 13, BARNES discloses the method wherein processing the stream of bytes further comprises storing, in an external memory, at least a portion of the stream of bytes while processing the stream of bytes (paragraphs 124-125, 135-136).
Claims 12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARNES et al. (US Publication 2012/0320921) hereafter BARNES, in view of Suzuki et al. (US Publication 2007/0091359) hereafter Suzuki, in further view of Luo et al. (US Publication 2004/0095998) hereafter Luo.
As per claim 12, BARNES-Suzuki discloses the method wherein the at least one processor is part of at least one systolic array (BARNES: paragraphs 94, 179, 220). Although, BARNES-Suzuki disclose routing and streaming in a packet-switched compute network, but fail to expressly disclose wherein the at least one processor or FPGA is part of at least one systolic array.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Luo discloses the claimed limitation of wherein the at least one processor or FPGA is part of at least one systolic array (paragraph 79: efficient mapping with FPGA).
The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 12.
Claim 14 is an Independent claim with similar limitation but different in preamble, hence, are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 1. Claim 14 additionally recites limitation of at least one processor or FPGA; and memory storing instructions configured to instruct or program the at least one processor or FPGA (Luo: paragraph 79: efficient mapping with FPGA).
The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 14.
Claims 15-19 are listed all the same elements of claims 2-4, and 12-13 respectively. Therefore, the supporting rationales of the rejection to claims 2-4, and 12-13 apply equally as well to claims 15-19, respectively
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brugger et al. (US Publication 2014/0195798) discloses secure data storage in a storage in a distributed computing system by a client of the distributed computing system. The method comprises in a gateway device of the distributed computing system intercepting a data file from at least a portion of stream data during transmission of the stream data in the distributed computing system; evaluating the data file for determining the communication protocol used for the stream data transmission; and evaluating the data file based on the communication protocol for determining the destination and the source of the data file. The method further comprises, if the destination is the storage, selecting a set of analysis algorithms from a plurality of predetermined analysis algorithms; analyzing the data file using each of the analysis algorithms of the set of analysis algorithms for determining if the data file comprises sensitive data; in response to a determination that the data file comprises sensitive data, replacing payload content of the data file with encrypted payload data; and transmitting the data file to the storage.
XIONG et al. (US Publication 2018/0176194) discloses service processing method and apparatus. The method includes: setting up, by a proxy node, a first encrypted connection to UE, and setting up a second encrypted connection to the network server; obtaining, by the proxy node from the UE, an encryption context generated in the process of setting up the first encrypted connection, and generating a first key according to the encryption context; and receiving, by the proxy node, a ciphertext sent by the UE, decrypting the ciphertext by using the first key, processing obtained service information, and sending the processed service information to the network server by using the second encrypted connection, where the ciphertext is obtained by the UE by encrypting the service information by using a second key, the first key corresponds to the second key, and the second key is generated by the UE according to the encryption context.
Garstin et al. (US Publication 2003/0131233) discloses efficient packet encryption method decreases the computation time to encrypt and decrypt successive packets of plaintext data. An S-vector is generated and the S-vector is used to encrypt successive packets of plaintext, thus reducing the per packet encryption/decryption time. The formula for encrypting successive packets includes use of the packet sequence number with a third variable injected to eliminate the predictability of the variables, thus making the present efficient packet encryption method more secure. A fourth variable is injected into the calculations to generate an encryption stream that does not repeat as frequently to provide additional security from hackers. For encrypting a packet having a long payload of plaintext, a packet byte sequence number is used to generate an encryption stream that is less likely to repeat within a particular packet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARZANA B HUQ whose telephone number is (571)270-3223. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Emmanuel L Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/FARZANA B HUQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights