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
Response to Amendment
This is a reply to the application filed on 7/2/2026, in which claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting Rejection:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Double Patenting rejection of claim(s) 1-20 have been considered and are found not persuasive. The Parent Application still anticipated over the current claims, with the different being “one or more data entries usable to compress or decompress at least one certificate”, which would be obviousness-double type rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103:
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claim(s) 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,556 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from teach other. In this case, the current application is broader in scope and fully anticipated by the parent application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims amendment including “the one or more first mappings include mappings between one or more index values and one or more data entries usable to compress or decompress at least one certificate;”… There is no teaching of mapping data entries usable to compress or decompress the certificate. The specification at best discloses mappings between one or more new index values and one or more data entries included in the uncompressed portions of the one or more server certificates… not entries usable to compress or decompress the certificate. As such, this limitation constitute new matters.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20190044738 A1; hereinafter Liu) in view of Barnes et al. (US 20210021434 A1; hereinafter Barnes) further in view of Transier (US 20200320089 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 17, Liu discloses a method comprising:
receiving, at a first node from a second node, a first certificate compression dictionary [[that includes one or more first mappings]] (receiver device obtaining the certificate chain from the sender, the certificates are linked list [Liu; ¶25-28, 39-40; Figs. 1, 5 and associated texts]). Liu discloses certificate chain exchange using message between devices. Liu does not explicilty discloses a first certificate compression dictionary that includes one or more first mapping and the one or more first mappings include mappings between one or more index values and one or more data entries [[usable to compress or decompress at least one certificate]]; however, in a related and analogous art, Barnes teaches this feature.
In particular, Barnes teaches transmitting the compressed certificate chain to a neighboring node to perform the authentication procedure with the neighboring node, in which a certificate chain based on a first mapping to generate a compressed certificate chain, wherein the certificate chain includes a first data entry and the compressed certificate chain includes a first index in place of the first data entry [Barnes; ¶6, 19, 35; Figs. 1, 3 and associated texts], mapping to generate a compressed certificate chain, wherein the certificate chain includes a first data entry and the compressed certificate chain includes a first index in place of the first data entry [Barnes; ¶6, 64-67; Figs. 1, 6 and associated texts]);
processing, by the first node, the one or more first mappings to identify one or more first certificates that are known to the second node (the receiver identify all the certificates and the missing certificate in the certificate chain [Liu; ¶25-28, 39-40; Figs. 1, 5 and associated texts]);
identifying, by the first node, a second certificate not included in the one or more first certificates (the receiver determined the missing certificate in the certificate chain, in infrastructure mode, an RSU may proactively provision a vehicle or other mobile device with “potentially missing” CA certificates associated with a neighborhood, including intermediate CA certificates, root CA certificates as well as elector certificates and endorsements [Liu; ¶25-28, 39-40; Figs. 1, 5 and associated texts]); and
transmitting, by the first node to the second node, the second certificate (obtaining missing certificates from neighbor nodes and adding the missing certificate to the certificate chain [Liu 25-26, 48-52], after determined the missing certificates, adding missing certificate to the certificate chain, compressed and transmit the compressed certificate chain to a neighboring node [Barnes; ¶64-67; Figs. 1, 6 and associated texts]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu in view of Barnes compressed certificate chain with mapping information. The motivation for frequent certificate chain exchange is to make sure all nodes are up to date with certificates, and as a compressed certificate chain is smaller in size compared to a corresponding uncompressed certificate chain, a node consumes less power transmitting the compressed certificate chain to a neighboring node.
Liu-Barnes combination does not explicilty discloses the one or more first mappings include mappings between one or more index values and one or more data entries usable to compress or decompress at least one certificate; however, in a related and analogous art, Transier teaches this feature.
In particular, Transier teaches mapping of the index value with an identifier which references a compressed dictionary for recompress uncompressed [Transier; ¶23-38]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu-Barnes combination in view of Transier with the motivation to easier identify the certificate location within the certificate chain.
Regarding claim 2, Liu-Barnes combination discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises identifying the one or more first certificates based on the one or more data entries (mapping to generate a compressed certificate chain, wherein the certificate chain includes a first data entry and the compressed certificate chain includes a first index in place of the first data entry [Barnes; ¶6, 64-67; Figs. 1, 6 and associated texts]). The motivation for frequent certificate chain exchange is to make sure all nodes are up to date with certificates, and as a compressed certificate chain is smaller in size compared to a corresponding uncompressed certificate chain, a node consumes less power transmitting the compressed certificate chain to a neighboring node.
Regarding claim 3, Liu-Barnes combination discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: wherein identifying the second certificate is further based on one or more second mappings in a second certificate compression dictionary stored by the first node (determined missing entry based on the stored mapping dictionary [Barnes; ¶6, 64-67; Figs. 4-6 and associated texts]). The motivation for frequent certificate chain exchange is to make sure all nodes are up to date with certificates, and as a compressed certificate chain is smaller in size compared to a corresponding uncompressed certificate chain, a node consumes less power transmitting the compressed certificate chain to a neighboring node.
Regarding claim 4, Liu-Barnes combination discloses the method of claim 3, wherein transmitting the second certificate comprises compressing the second certificate based on at least one of the one or more first mappings or the one or more second mappings (the secondary dictionary is compressed before transmitting [Barnes; ¶6, 64-67; Figs. 4-6 and associated texts]). The motivation for frequent certificate chain exchange is to make sure all nodes are up to date with certificates, and as a compressed certificate chain is smaller in size compared to a corresponding uncompressed certificate chain, a node consumes less power transmitting the compressed certificate chain to a neighboring node.
Regarding claim 5, Liu-Barnes combination discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising transmitting, by the first node to the second node, the second certificate compression dictionary (transmit the compressed certificate chain to a neighboring node [Barnes; ¶64-67; Figs. 1, 6 and associated texts]). The motivation for frequent certificate chain exchange is to make sure all nodes are up to date with certificates, and as a compressed certificate chain is smaller in size compared to a corresponding uncompressed certificate chain, a node consumes less power transmitting the compressed certificate chain to a neighboring node.
Regarding claim 6, Liu-Barnes combination discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising: receiving, by the first node from the second node, a third certificate; and updating, by the first node, the second certificate compression dictionary based on the third certificate (all the missing certificates are added to the certificate chain [Barnes; ¶19, 35; Figs. 1, 6 and associated texts]). The motivation for frequent certificate chain exchange is to make sure all nodes are up to date with certificates, and as a compressed certificate chain is smaller in size compared to a corresponding uncompressed certificate chain, a node consumes less power transmitting the compressed certificate chain to a neighboring node.
Regarding claim 7, Liu-Barnes combination discloses the method of claim 6, wherein: the third certificate is compressed; and the method further comprises decompressing, by the first node, the third certificate (the first node can compressed/decompressed any compression dictionary it received [Barnes; ¶19, 35, 41-55; Figs. 1, 3, 6 and associated texts]). The motivation for frequent certificate chain exchange is to make sure all nodes are up to date with certificates, and as a compressed certificate chain is smaller in size compared to a corresponding uncompressed certificate chain, a node consumes less power transmitting the compressed certificate chain to a neighboring node.
Regarding claim 8, Liu-Barnes combination discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: validating, by the first node, the first certificate compression dictionary; and transmitting the second certificate to the second node in response to successfully validating the first certificate compression dictionary (the certificate chain is validated before deemed trustable, and transmitting to other nodes [Liu; ¶25-34; Fig. 1, 3 and associated texts]).
Regarding claim 9, Liu-Barnes combination discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, at the first node from a third node, a second certificate compression dictionary; and in response to failing to validate the second certificate compression dictionary, terminating, by the first node, a connection with the third node (attempt to validate the unknown certificate and if failed, report the issue [Liu; ¶114-115, 132]).
Regarding claim 11, Liu-Barnes combination discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise compressing the second certificate using a second dictionary before sending the second certificate to the second network device, the second dictionary including one or more second entries usable for compressing and decompressing certificates (entry data to determine if the certificate chain is uncompressed or compressed [Barnes; ¶19, 35, 41-55; Figs. 3, 6 and associated texts]). The motivation for frequent certificate chain exchange is to make sure all nodes are up to date with certificates, and as a compressed certificate chain is smaller in size compared to a corresponding uncompressed certificate chain, a node consumes less power transmitting the compressed certificate chain to a neighboring node.
Regarding claim 12, Liu-Barnes combination discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise sending the second dictionary to the second network device (transmit the update compressed certificate chain to a neighboring node [Barnes; ¶64-67; Figs. 1, 6 and associated texts]). The motivation for frequent certificate chain exchange is to make sure all nodes are up to date with certificates, and as a compressed certificate chain is smaller in size compared to a corresponding uncompressed certificate chain, a node consumes less power transmitting the compressed certificate chain to a neighboring node.
Regarding claim 13, Liu-Barnes combination discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise identifying the second certificate based on the one or more second entries (entry data to determine if the certificate chain is uncompressed or compressed [Barnes; ¶19, 35, 41-55; Figs. 3, 6 and associated texts]). The motivation for frequent certificate chain exchange is to make sure all nodes are up to date with certificates, and as a compressed certificate chain is smaller in size compared to a corresponding uncompressed certificate chain, a node consumes less power transmitting the compressed certificate chain to a neighboring node.
Regarding claim 14, Liu-Barnes combination discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a third certificate from the second network device; and updating the second dictionary based on the third certificate (all the missing certificates are added to the certificate chain [Barnes; ¶19, 35; Figs. 1, 6 and associated texts]). The motivation for frequent certificate chain exchange is to make sure all nodes are up to date with certificates, and as a compressed certificate chain is smaller in size compared to a corresponding uncompressed certificate chain, a node consumes less power transmitting the compressed certificate chain to a neighboring node.
Regarding claim 15, Liu-Barnes combination discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a second dictionary from a third network device, the second dictionary including one or more second entries usable for compressing or decompressing certificates; determining that the second dictionary is invalid; and ending a network connection with the third network device (attempt to validate the unknown certificate and if failed, report the issue [Liu; ¶114-115, 132], all the missing certificates are added to the certificate chain [Barnes; ¶19, 35; Figs. 1, 6 and associated texts]). The motivation for frequent certificate chain exchange is to make sure all nodes are up to date with certificates, and as a compressed certificate chain is smaller in size compared to a corresponding uncompressed certificate chain, a node consumes less power transmitting the compressed certificate chain to a neighboring node.
Regarding claim 16, Liu-Barnes combination discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 10, wherein the second certificate is part of a certificate chain stored by the first network device (the receiving device has its own certificate chain [Liu; ¶25-28, 39-40; Figs. 1, 5 and associated texts]).
Regarding claim 18, Liu-Barnes combination discloses the networked computing device of claim 17, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving, via the transceiver, a third certificate from the second networked computing device; storing the third certificate in the first certificate cache; and generating, one or more second compressing mappings based on the third certificate (certificate exchange often, all the missing certificates are added to the certificate chain [Barnes; ¶19, 35; Figs. 1, 6 and associated texts]). The motivation for frequent certificate chain exchange is to make sure all nodes are up to date with certificates, and as a compressed certificate chain is smaller in size compared to a corresponding uncompressed certificate chain, a node consumes less power transmitting the compressed certificate chain to a neighboring node.
Regarding claim 19, Liu-Barnes combination discloses the networked computing device of claim 18, wherein the operations further comprise decompressing the third certificate using the one or more first compression mappings (entry mapping and indexing are the same, so they know what is missing [Barnes; ¶6, 64-67; Figs. 4-6 and associated texts]). The motivation for frequent certificate chain exchange is to make sure all nodes are up to date with certificates, and as a compressed certificate chain is smaller in size compared to a corresponding uncompressed certificate chain, a node consumes less power transmitting the compressed certificate chain to a neighboring node.
Regarding claim 20, Liu-Barnes combination discloses the networked computing device of claim 17, wherein the second certificate is a client certificate associated with the networked computing device (the received certificates are associated with each device for better validation [Liu; ¶25-28, 39-40; Figs. 1, 5 and associated texts]).
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAO Q HO whose telephone number is (571)270-5998. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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 Nickerson can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAO Q HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights