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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to an application filed November 25, 2024. A preliminary amendment was filed March 17, 2025 to cancel claims 1-20 and add claims 21-40. Claims 21-40 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 17, 2025 is acknowledged. 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 obviousness 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of patent document (US 12,155,635 B1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same subject matter of HTTPS over Proxy (HoP). A side-by-side analysis of the first independent claim(s) of the instant application and patent document have been included below. The bolded portions are portions which are almost identical to one another. The non-bolded portions are related to subject matter which is obvious, and do not further define over the subject matter of the U.S. patent document. Therefore, the subject matter of both claim sets are not distinct from one another.
Here is the following side-by-side analysis of the first independent claim in each application:
Instant Application ‘567
1. A computer device for HTTPS over Proxy (HoP), comprising:
a transceiver configured for operable communication with at least one client device of a communication network and via secure connection with a server device associated with a domain; and
a processor including a memory configured to store computer-executable instructions, which, when executed by the processor, cause the computer device to:
store a first communication authentication token associated with the domain to assert an identity of the domain;
receive, from a client device via the communication network, a communication request message for the domain associated with the server device;
transmit, to the client device, the first communication authentication token associated with the domain, wherein the client device is configured to validate the first communication authentication token; and
receive, from the client device a second communication authentication token to assert an identity of the client device;
transmit, to the server device, the second communication authentication token associated with the client device, wherein the server device is configured to validate the first communication authentication token; and
continue communication with the client device if the server device validates the second communication authentication token.
Patent Document ‘635
1. A computer device for HTTPS over Proxy (HoP), comprising:
a transceiver configured for operable communication with at least one client device of a communication network and via secure connection with a server device; and
a processor including a memory configured to store computer-executable instructions, which, when executed by the processor, cause the computer device to:
store a plurality of communication authentication tokens each associated with a domain of a plurality of domains, wherein each communication authentication token of the plurality of authentication tokens was issued by the communication corresponding domain of the plurality of domains to assert an identity of the corresponding domain;
receive, from a client device via the communication network, a communication request message including a desired domain associated with the server device;
determine a communication authentication token of the plurality of communication authentication tokens associated with the desired domain of the plurality of domains;
transmit, to the client device, the communication authentication token associated with the desired domain, wherein the client device is configured to validate the communication authentication token; and
continue communication with the client device if the client device validates the communication authentication token.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kiester et al. (US 2019/0182250 A1).
With respect to claim 21, Kiester discloses a computer device for HTTPS over Proxy (HoP) (Abstract), comprising:
a transceiver configured for operable communication with at least one client device of a communication network and via secure connection with a server device associated with a domain ([0051], communication unit includes component to transmit or receive information); and
a processor including a memory configured to store computer-executable instructions, which, when executed by the processor, cause the computer device to (Figure 3), which, when executed by the processor, cause the computer device to:
store a first communication authentication token associated with the domain to assert an identity of the domain ([0030], store authentication token);
receive, from a client device via the communication network, a communication request message for the domain associated with the server device (Figure 2B and [0033], client device sends HTTP request to access webpage at a domain);
transmit, to the client device, the first communication authentication token associated with the domain, wherein the client device is configured to validate the first communication authentication token ([0019], local proxy application of client intercepts HTTP response and caches authentication token); and
receive, from the client device a second communication authentication token to assert an identity of the client device (Figure 2B and [0033], client device sends HTTP request to access webpage at a domain);
transmit, to the server device, the second communication authentication token associated with the client device, wherein the server device is configured to validate the first communication authentication token ([0019], local proxy application of client intercepts HTTP response and caches authentication token); and
continue communication with the client device if the server device validates the second communication authentication token ([0034] and [0036], including authentication token in custom header of HTTP request to indicate HTTP session has been authenticated).
With respect to claim 22, Kiester discloses the computer device of Claim 21, wherein the computer device is further programmed to store a plurality of communication authentication tokens including the first communication authentication token, wherein each communication authentication token of the plurality of communication authentication tokens was issued by a corresponding domain of a plurality of domains to assert an identity of the corresponding domain ([0030], storing authentication token at proxy; ([0016] and [0045]).
With respect to claim 23, Kiester discloses the computer device of Claim 22, wherein the computer device is further programmed to determine the first communication authentication token of the plurality of communication authentication tokens that originated from the domain of the plurality of domains associated with the server device ([0016]).
With respect to claim 24, Kiester discloses the computer device of Claim 22, wherein the plurality of communication authentication tokens are HoP tokens including authentication information for the corresponding domain (Abstract).
With respect to claim 25, Kiester discloses the computer device of Claim 21, wherein the communication request message is at least one of a TLS handshake exchange message and an HTTP request message ([0037], enabling security application of the proxy to authenticate TLS connections).
With respect to claim 26, Kiester discloses the computer device of Claim 21, wherein the computer device is further programmed to:
determine that the first communication authentication token is invalid ([0029]);
transmit, to the server device, a request for an updated first communication authentication token ([0029]);
receive, from the server device, the updated first communication authentication token ([0029]); and
store the updated first communication authentication token ([0029]).
With respect to claim 27, Kiester discloses the computer device of Claim 26, wherein the computer device is further programmed to determine that the first communication authentication token is invalid due to an expiration date ([0029]).
With respect to claim 28, Kiester discloses the computer device of Claim 21, wherein the computer device is further programmed to establish a mutual TLS connection between the client device and the computer device ([0037]).
With respect to claim 29, Kiester discloses the computer device of Claim 21, wherein the computer device is a service communication proxy in a 5G network ([0037]).
With respect to claim 30, Kiester discloses the computer device of Claim 21, wherein the computer device is a service communication proxy in the Internet ([0021], network 102 may be coupled to portions of a telecommunications network).
With respect to claim(s) 31-40, the method of claim(s) 31-40 does/do not limit or further define over the computer device of claim(s) 21-30. The limitations of claim(s) 31-40 is/are essentially similar to the limitations of claim(s) 21-30. Therefore, claim(s) 31-40 is/are rejected for the same reasons as claim(s) 21-30. Please see rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESTHER B. HENDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6a-2p 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, Umar Cheema can be reached on 571-270-3037. 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.
/ESTHER B. HENDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458 March 20, 2026