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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4 December 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Line 11 and Claim 5, Lines 7-8 recite “wherein the USC node exchange executable instructions”. This statement lacks grammatical form and should read “wherein the USC node exchanges executable instructions”.
Claim 1, Lines 25-26 and Claim 5, Lines 21-23 recite “the plurality of CFR nodes exchange security control commands, security parameters, configuration parameters with the USC node”. This statement lacks grammatical form and should be corrected with the proper delineators between the list elements.
Claim 5, Lines 17-19 recites “wherein, each CFR node in the exclusive CFR List makes a transport protocol connection to every other CFR node in the exclusive CFR List and refresh the node state information periodically”. This statement lacks grammatical form and the word “refresh” should be “refreshes”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitations are:
Claim 4: a receiver (Rx) module for receiving the content (no corresponding structure recited)
Claim 4: a distributor module for updating… (no corresponding structure recited)
Claim 4: a transmission (Tx) module for transmitting… (no corresponding structure recited)
Claim 4: a terminator module for terminating the content (no corresponding structure)
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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.
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 1-6 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "The originator module" in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 is rejected on this basis. Claims 2-4 are rejected as depending from a rejected claim and failing to correct the deficiencies thereof.
Claim 1 recites “wherein, each CFR node of the plurality of CFR nodes, initialize a state graph, refresh the node state information periodically, and establish a separate connection setup, at transport protocol level for content transmission between any two CFR nodes of the plurality of CFR nodes” at lines 21-24. The punctuation of this phrase renders it unclear and requires correction. Claim 1 is rejected on this basis. Claims 2-4 are rejected as depending from a rejected claims and failing to correct the deficiencies thereof.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the CRM operation" in Line 27. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 is rejected on this basis. Claims 2-4 are rejected as depending from a rejected claims and failing to correct the deficiencies thereof.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the content moves at application layer from any CFR node of the plurality of CFR nodes to next CFR node of the plurality of CFR nodes as it is transported from the ingress CFR node to the egress CFR node”. It is unclear from the specification howe data as described can move from node to node in a network only utilizing the Application Layer of the OSI model as claimed. Claim 5 similarly recites “the content moves at application layer across pre-defined paths”. Claims 1 and 5 are rejected on this basis. Claims 2-4 are rejected as depending from a rejected claims and failing to correct the deficiencies thereof.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the CRM operation" in Line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 is rejected on this basis. Claim 6 is rejected as depending from a rejected claim and failing to correct the deficiencies thereof.
Claim limitations “a receiver (Rx) module for receiving the content”, “a distributor module for updating”, “a transmission (Tx) module for transmitting” and “a terminator module for terminating the content” of Claim 4 invoke 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. The written description contains no reference for an structure for any of the claimed modules. 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.
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 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No.12,184,667. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application represent a rearrangement and obvious variatioj of the claims of the ‘667 Patent.
As to claim 1, the ‘667 Patent discloses a system to implement secure storage routing overlay network, the system comprising (Claim 1: A system for an Exclusive-Path content forwarding overlay network, the system comprising):
a plurality of content forwarding router (CFR) nodes placed at a plurality of locations spanning countries and continents (Claim 1: a plurality of data transport controller (DTC) nodes to forward split partition (SP) fragments); and
a Universal Security Controller (USC) node that receives telemetry data sent from the plurality of CFR nodes, wherein the USC node is communicatively connected to the plurality of CFR nodes for populating and updating node state information to the plurality of CFR nodes (Claim 1: and a universal security controller (USC) node that populates and updates content forwarding paths to the DTC nodes at regular intervals of time),
wherein the USC node exchange executable instructions with the plurality of CFR nodes and further comprising the steps (Claim 1: wherein the USC node exchanges executable instructions with the plurality of DTC nodes, the plurality of SG nodes and the plurality of sets of SV nodes for security control or contextual risk mitigation (CRM) operations) of:
creating split partition (SP) fragments at an ingress CFR node (Claim 1: creating SP Fragments, out of the content at the first SG node), updating each SP Fragment with an exclusive CFR List, by the originator module, at the ingress CFR node (Claim 1: creating an exclusive content forwarding router (CFR) List for content forwarding, at the first DTC node, for each SP fragment, updating the SP Fragments with the exclusive CFR List for each SP fragment),
moving the SP fragments from the ingress CFR node to an egress CFR node across an exclusive list of CFR nodes whereas no overlapping CFR nodes exist between the ingress CFR node to the egress CFR node (Claim 1: executing an exclusive path forwarding (EPF) operation of each SP fragment from the first DTC node to a last DTC node of the plurality of DTC nodes in the CFR List),,
terminating content transport at the egress CFR node (Claim 1: terminating the EPF operation at the last DTC node),
wherein, each CFR node of the plurality of CFR nodes, initialize a state graph, refresh the node state information periodically, and establish a separate connection setup, at transport protocol level for content transmission between any two CFR nodes of the plurality of CFR nodes (Claim 1: receiving commands at the first SG Node, to transfer content to a destination DTC node of the plurality of DTC nodes, moving the SP fragments from the first set of SV nodes to a first DTC node of the plurality of DTC nodes, through the first SG node, creating an exclusive content forwarding router (CFR) List for content forwarding, at the first DTC node, for each SP fragment, updating the SP Fragments with the exclusive CFR List for each SP fragment, executing an exclusive path forwarding (EPF) operation of each SP fragment from the first DTC node to a last DTC node of the plurality of DTC nodes in the CFR List), wherein the plurality of CFR nodes exchange security control commands, security parameters, configuration parameters with the USC node, and initiate the CRM operation based on the received command parameters from the USC node (Claim 1: whereas the plurality of SG nodes and the plurality of DTC nodes are communicatively connected together in a Wide Area Network and exchange control commands, security parameters, configuration parameters with the USC node, on control lanes, security lanes, and configuration lanes respectively), wherein the content moves at application layer from any CFR node of the plurality of CFR nodes to next CFR node of the plurality of CFR nodes as it is transported from the ingress CFR node to the egress CFR node (Claim 1: whereas the plurality of SG nodes and the plurality of DTC nodes are communicatively connected together in a Wide Area Network and exchange control commands, security parameters, configuration parameters with the USC node, on control lanes, security lanes, and configuration lanes respectively and no in-bound connections are made to the first set and the second set of SV nodes of the plurality of sets of SV nodes from any system in the Exclusive-Path content forwarding overlay network).
As to claim 2, the ‘667 Patent discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein moving the SP fragments from the ingress CFR node to the egress CFR node further comprises the steps of: selecting a CFR node from the exclusive CFR List as next hop by advancing the CFR List by one node, forwarding the SP fragments to the selected CFR node assigned as the next hop, repeating the above step at each CFR node listed in the exclusive CFR List successively until the content reaches the egress CFR node (Clam 1: moving the SP fragments from the first set of SV nodes to a first DTC node of the plurality of DTC nodes, through the first SG node, creating an exclusive content forwarding router (CFR) List for content forwarding, at the first DTC node, for each SP fragment, updating the SP Fragments with the exclusive CFR List for each SP fragment, executing an exclusive path forwarding (EPF) operation of each SP fragment from the first DTC node to a last DTC node of the plurality of DTC nodes in the CFR List, terminating the EPF operation at the last DTC node).
As to claim 3, the ‘667 Patent discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the originator module is configured to insert the exclusive CFR List into each SP fragment and push the updated content to a forwarding queue at the ingress CFR node (Claim 1: at the first DTC node, for each SP fragment, updating the SP Fragments with the exclusive CFR List for each SP fragment, executing an exclusive path forwarding (EPF) operation of each SP fragment from the first DTC node to a last DTC node of the plurality of DTC nodes in the CFR List,).
As to claim 4, the ‘667 Patent discloses the system as claimed in claim 1,wherein each CFR node of the plurality of CFR nodes further comprises:
a receiver (Rx) module for receiving the content forwarded to a CFR node of the plurality of CFR nodes from any other CFR node of the plurality of CFR nodes; a distributor module for updating a header before forwarding the content to a CFR node in the exclusive CFR List; a transmission (Tx) module for transmitting the content to a next CFR node in the exclusive CFR List; an ingress queue for storing the incoming content traffic; an egress queue for storing the outgoing content traffic; and a terminator module for terminating the content traffic and initiating the content delivery, wherein every CFR node listed in the exclusive CFR list updates the header with the information of the next CFR node listed in the exclusive CFR list as the next hop and forwards the content to the next CFR node (aim 1: receiving the content at a first SG node of the plurality of SG nodes, through data input operation, creating SP Fragments, out of the content at the first SG node, storing the SP fragments at a first set of SV nodes of the plurality of sets of SV nodes, receiving commands at the first SG Node, to transfer content to a destination DTC node of the plurality of DTC nodes, moving the SP fragments from the first set of SV nodes to a first DTC node of the plurality of DTC nodes, through the first SG node, creating an exclusive content forwarding router (CFR) List for content forwarding, at the first DTC node, for each SP fragment, updating the SP Fragments with the exclusive CFR List for each SP fragment, executing an exclusive path forwarding (EPF) operation of each SP fragment from the first DTC node to a last DTC node of the plurality of DTC nodes in the CFR List, terminating the EPF operation at the last DTC node, and moving the SP fragments to a second set of SV nodes of the plurality of sets of SV nodes, from the SG node attached to the last DTC node, whereas the plurality of SG nodes and the plurality of DTC nodes are communicatively connected together in a Wide Area Network and exchange control commands, security parameters, configuration parameters with the USC node, on control lanes, security lanes, and configuration lanes respectively and no in-bound connections are made to the first set and the second set of SV nodes of the plurality of sets of SV nodes from any system in the Exclusive-Path content forwarding overlay network).
Claims 5 and 6 recite a method commensurate in scope to the system of claims 1 and 2 and are thus rejected under a substantially similar rationale.
Priority
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0401483 by Goyal et al. discloses secure distributed storage
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0288704 by Trussov et al. disclose fragmented data storage
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0133771 by Goyal et al. discloses secure distributed storage
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S MCNALLY whose telephone number is (571)270-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM - 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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached at (469)295-9235. 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.
MICHAEL S. MCNALLY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2432
/Michael S McNally/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432