DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
The present office action is responsive to communications received on 2/20/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 9, 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12255995. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the 12255995 contain every element of claims of the instant application. Application claims 1, 9, 14 are anticipated by the patent claim 1.
A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a 35 patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Instant Application No. 19058287
Patent No. 12255995
1. An encryption retransmission device for providing resiliency against attacks, the encryption retransmission device comprising:
at least one encryption unit configured for:
encrypting an egressing native packet received from at least one device using at least one encryption key to create an encrypted egressing native packet;
adding a connectionless header to the encrypted egressing native packet to form an egressing connectionless datagram;
receiving an ingressing connectionless datagram comprising an ingressing encrypted native packet; and
decrypting the encrypted ingressing native packet using the at least one encryption key;
at least one communication unit communicatively coupled with the at least one encryption unit, wherein the at least one communication unit is paired with at least one first communication unit of at least one first encryption retransmission device, wherein the at least one communication unit is configured for:
receiving the egressing connectionless datagram;
adding a complex header to the egressing connectionless datagram for forming an egressing packet for delivery to the at least one first encryption retransmission device;
receiving an ingressing packet comprising the encrypted ingressing native packet and a complex header from the at least one first encryption retransmission device;
removing the complex header from the ingressing packet; and
adding a connectionless header to the ingressing packet for forming an ingressing connectionless datagram, wherein the ingressing connectionless datagram comprises the encrypted ingressing native packet; and
at least one galvanic isolator coupled with the at least one encryption unit and the at least one communication unit while maintaining galvanic isolation between the at least one encryption unit and the at least one communication unit.
1. An encryption retransmission device for providing resiliency against attacks, the encryption retransmission device comprising:
at least one encryption unit configured for:
encrypting an egressing native packet received from at least one device using at least one encryption key to create an encrypted egressing native packet;
adding a connectionless header to the encrypted egressing native packet to form an egressing connectionless datagram;
receiving an ingressing connectionless datagram comprising an ingressing encrypted native packet; and
decrypting the encrypted ingressing native packet using the at least one encryption key;
at least one communication unit communicatively coupled with the at least one encryption unit, wherein the at least one communication unit is paired with at least one first communication unit of at least one first encryption retransmission device, wherein the at least one communication unit is configured for:
receiving the egressing connectionless datagram;
adding a complex header to the egressing connectionless datagram for forming an egressing packet for delivery to the at least one first encryption retransmission device;
receiving an ingressing packet comprising the encrypted ingressing native packet and a complex header from the at least one first encryption retransmission device;
removing the complex header from the ingressing packet; and
adding a connectionless header to the ingressing packet for forming an ingressing connectionless datagram, wherein the ingressing connectionless datagram comprises the encrypted ingressing native packet; and
at least one galvanic isolator electromagnetically coupled with the at least one encryption unit and the at least one communication unit, wherein the at least one galvanic isolator is configured for galvanically isolating the at least one encryption unit and the at least one communication unit.
Similar rationale for claim 9 and 14
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) are:
“encryption unit configured for/to” and “communication unit configured for/to” in claims 1, 9 and 14.
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.
The written description discloses that the corresponding structure can be the structure recited in specification ¶58; therefore, the claims are definite and are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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 1-8 are allowable over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1, the prior art:
Cline (US 11588798 B1) teaches an encrypting device including an encryption unit and a communications unit. Paired encrypting devices allow for communication of trusted data between trusted devices over an untrusted network. Data received by the encryption unit is encrypted and provided with a connectionless header for delivery to the communications unit. Data received by the communications units is provided with a complex header for delivery to the paired encrypting device. The encrypting devices may be implemented in hardware or may be virtualized on a server or a plurality of servers. Arrangement of the encrypting devices in a hub-and-spoke topology allows for communication amongst a plurality of trusted devices. The encrypting devices can be used to convert commercially available equipment suitable for high assurance environments.
However, the prior art – individually, or in a reasonable combination – fails to teach the invention described in the claims as a whole.
“at least one galvanic isolator coupled with the at least one encryption unit and the at least one communication unit while maintaining galvanic isolation between the at least one encryption unit and the at least one communication unit.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12088569 B1, "Protocol free encrypting device", by Cline.
US 20120201383 A1, “Decrypting apparatus, encrypting apparatus, decrypting method, encrypting method, and communication system”, by Matsuo.
US 6253321 B1, “Method and arrangement for implementing IPSEC policy management using filter code”, by Nikander.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAN YANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7638. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 9:00-5:00.
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, Carl Colin can be reached on 571-272-3862. 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.
/HAN YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
