DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that no Information Disclosure Statement has been filed.
No IDS has been received for this application. Applicants are reminded of the Duty to Disclose, from section 2001 of the MPEP (emphasis added). MPEP 2001 Duty of Disclosure, Candor, and Good Faith [R-08.2012] 37 C.F.R. 1.56 Duty to disclose information material to patentability.
(a) A patent by its very nature is affected with a public interest. The public interest is best served, and the most effective patent examination occurs when, at the time an application is being examined, the Office is aware of and evaluates the teachings of all information material to patentability. Each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability as defined in this section.
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: “circuits to” in claims 11-16, “processors to” in claim 17.
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. Examiner notes that the specification does not appear to provide support for specific structures to perform the claimed functions.
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 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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 recites the limitation "the key". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
This is not intended to be a complete list of such indefiniteness issues.
The dependent claims included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving, extracting, and making a determination about information, and performing an action.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they are broad enough to cover receiving, combining, encrypting text in the mind or with pen/paper, other than the generic computer components.
Regarding Prong One, these steps, as drafted, form a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen/paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer implemented method”, “circuits to”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “a computer implemented method”, “circuits to” language, the claim encompasses a user receiving, extracting, and making a determination about information, and performing an action as introduction to elementary encryption or networking classes are taught.
Regarding Prong Two, there are no additional element(s) or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims only use generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process and are not patent eligible.
The claims are directed to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as evidenced by the “background of the invention” section and the cited references.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-12, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rothenberger (NPL “ReDMArk: Bypassing RDMA Security Mechanisms”).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Rothenberger teaches A computer-implemented method comprising: / A processor comprising one or more circuits to (abstract):
receiving, in a network, a request sent by a client to access a server in the network; extracting information from a key associated with the request (sec.4.2, key associated with memory regions, requests need include both);
determining, using the extracted information, that the key lacks expected key information previously shared to the server; and responsive to determining that the key lacks expected key information, performing at least one action (sec.5.4, sec.7, mitigation based on limiting the number of open connections).
Regarding claim 17, Rothenberger teaches A system comprising: one or more processors to (abstract)
determine that a server in a network is under a potential attack based on a determination that more than a threshold a number of requests have been received where key information associated with the requests differs from expected key information pre-shared to the server in the network (sec.4.2, 5.4, sec.7, key associated with memory regions, included in requests, mitigation based on limiting the number of open connections).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Rothenberger teaches incrementing a value of a counter for each occurrence of a received request associated with a key lacking the expected key information; and responsive to detecting that the counter meets a specified condition, performing at least one remedial action (sec.5.4, 7.4).
Regarding claim 3, Rothenberger teaches wherein the specified condition includes detecting that the value of the counter exceeds an allowable threshold (sec.5.4, 7.4).
Regarding claim 4, Rothenberger teaches wherein the action is a remedial action that includes sending a message to a host of the network or rekeying the key (sec.5.5).
Regarding claim 6, Rothenberger teaches wherein the network is a remote direct memory access (RDMA) network (sec.2-2.2).
Regarding claims 9 and 15, Rothenberger teaches wherein the key is carried in a header of the request (sec.2-2.2).
Regarding claim 18, Rothenberger teaches perform at least one remedial action based on the determination that the server in the network is under a potential attack (sec.5.4, 7.4).
Regarding claim 19, Rothenberger teaches wherein the remedial action includes sending a message to a host of the network, blocking all access to the server for a period of time, or rejecting requests for a period of time (sec.5.5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 5, 7-8, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothenberger, and further in view of Krishtal (20250294052).
Regarding claim 5, Rothenberger does not expressly disclose, however, Krishtal teaches wherein the action includes blocking access to the server for a period of time, or rejecting requests for a period of time (par.47-53).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rothenberger to use request processing as taught by Krishtal.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to further protect access to resources (Krishtal, par.40-60).
Regarding claims 7, 13, and 20, Rothenberger does not expressly disclose, however, Krishtal teaches identifying an actor associated with one or more of the requests for access in which the key lacks the expected key information; and blocking subsequent requests sent by the actor for at least a period of time (par.47-53).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rothenberger to use request processing as taught by Krishtal.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to further protect access to resources (Krishtal, par.40-60).
Regarding claim 8, Rothenberger does not expressly disclose, however, Krishtal teaches determining that at least one additional field in requests associated with an actor contains suspicious data; and blocking additional requests sent by the actor (par.47-53).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rothenberger to use request processing as taught by Krishtal.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to further protect access to resources (Krishtal, par.40-60).
Regarding claim 14, Rothenberger/Krishtal teaches wherein the one or more circuits are further to: determine that at least one additional field in requests associated with an actor contains suspicious data; and block additional requests sent by the actor (Krishtal, par.47-53).
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothenberger, and further in view of Duan (20240104202).
Regarding claims 10 and 16, Rothenberger does not expressly disclose, however, Duan teaches detecting that a second server receives a request from a sender that sent the received request lacking expected key information; and instructing the second server to block subsequent requests from the sender (par.98-102).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rothenberger to notify other devices as taught by Duan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to share security knowledge (Duan, par.90-110).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: the remaining references put forth on the PTO-892 form are directed to detecting information in requests.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David García Cervetti whose telephone number is (571)272-5861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, HADI S ARMOUCHE can be reached at (571)270-3618. 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.
/David Garcia Cervetti/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights