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 application claims PROVISIONAL filed on 10/06/2023.
Claims 1-17, filed on 10/04/2024, are presented for examination.
Claim Interpretation
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:
“ciphertext (CT) communications module”, “IPSec cryptographic unit”, “PT convergence module”, “radio frequency (RF) radio system” in claims 1 & 9.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 are conditionally allowed over prior arts.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding Claim 1, With examiner’s thorough search the closest prior arts found are “Mestery” et al. (US 11368298 B2) and “Johnson” et al. (US 9596077 B2);
Wherein:
Mestery et al. is directed to Methods are provided for decentralized key negotiation. One method includes initiating, by a first Internet Key Exchange (IKE) node from among a plurality of IKE nodes, a rekeying process for an Internet Protocol Security (IPSec) communication session established with a client device and serviced by a second IKE node from among the plurality of IKE nodes, and in which a first encryption key is used to encrypt traffic. The method further includes obtaining, by the first IKE node from a key value store, information about the IPSec communication session and performing, by the first IKE node, at least a part of the rekeying process in which the first encryption key is replaced with a second encryption key for the IPSec communication session; and,
Johnson et al. is directed A method and system for establishing secure communications between endpoints includes transmitting a first message including a token having one or more entries each corresponding to a community of interest associated with a user of the first endpoint and including an encryption key and a validation key associated with the first endpoint. The method includes receiving a second message including a second authorization token including one or more entries, each entry corresponding to a community of interest associated with a second user and including an encryption key and a validation key associated with the second endpoint. The method includes, for each community of interest associated with both users, decrypting an associated entry in the second authorization token to obtain the encryption key and validation key associated with the second endpoint. The method also includes generating a shared secret based on the key pair, transmitting a third message including the created key pair to the second endpoint, and initializing tunnel using the shared secret to derive encryption keys used for IPsec-secured communications between the endpoints.
However, neither Mestery et al., nor Johnson et al., either alone or in combination, teach or suggest A communications node of a communications network, the communications node comprising: at least one IPSec cryptographic unit operatively coupled to the PT convergence module and to ciphertext (CT) convergence module, the IPSec cryptographic unit configured for: encryption of output traffic and decryption of input traffic according to the one or more IPSec protocols; and exchange of cross-layer information between the PT convergence module and the CT convergence module; wherein the at least one PT convergence module is configured to: map the output traffic to at least one CT capability associated with the CT communications module prior to encryption by the IPSec cryptographic unit, wherein the at least one CT capability includes one or more of a) a CT destination address of the receiving node, b) a quality of service (QOS) priority associated with the output traffic, or c) a packet size associated with the CT communications module; converge decrypted input traffic based on the at least one CT capability; and wherein the at least one CT convergence module is configured to: converge encrypted output traffic and encrypted input traffic based on the at least one CT capability with these and other claim elements as a whole.
Claim 2-17 are indicated as allowable based on their dependence.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (See PTO—892).
For example, US 2012/0254615 A1 that is directed to USING A DYNAMICALLY-GENERATED SYMMETRIC KEY TO ESTABLISH INTERNET PROTOCOL SECURITY FOR COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN A MOBILE SUBSCRIBER AND A SUPPORTING WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMARE F TABOR whose telephone number is (571) 270-3155. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.—Fri.: 8:00 AM to 5:00 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, KAMBIZ ZAND can be reached at (571) 272-3811. 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.
/AMARE F TABOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434