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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to applicant’s original disclosure submitted on 02/21/2025. Claims 1-21 are pending.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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, 11 and 21 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,296 and 296’ hereinafter. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to the following:
(19/059892) …intercept an original handshake message sent by a first computer for establishing an encrypted communication session between the first computer and a content server, the original handshake message including an encrypted section storing an identifier of the content server, the encrypted section being encrypted with a surrogate handshake encryption key distinct from a genuine handshake encryption key of the content server; decrypt the encrypted section to retrieve the identifier of the content server; determine according to the identifier of the content server whether an access policy associated with the first computer allows the first computer to access the content server; and in response, when the access policy allows the first computer to access the content server: modify the original handshake message by replacing the encrypted section with a substitute encrypted section storing the identifier of the content server, the substitute encrypted section encrypted using the genuine handshake encryption key of the content server, transmit the modified handshake message to a destination of the original handshake message, and in response to intercepting a server payload message sent by the content server within the encrypted communication session, the server payload message including a server payload encrypted using a genuine application encryption key of the first computer, relay the server payload message to the first computer; maps to (296’) intercept a client handshake message for establishing an encrypted communication session between a client device and a remote content server, the client handshake message including an encrypted section storing an identifier of the remote content server, the encrypted section being encrypted with a surrogate handshake encryption key distinct from a genuine handshake encryption key of the remote content server; decrypt the encrypted section to retrieve the identifier of the remote content server; determine according to the identifier of the remote content server whether an access policy associated with the client device allows the client device to access the remote content server; and in response, when the access policy allows the client device to access the remote content server: modify the client handshake message by replacing the encrypted section with a substitute encrypted section storing the identifier of the remote content server, the substitute encrypted section encrypted using the genuine handshake encryption key of the remote content server, transmit the modified handshake message to a destination of the client handshake message, and in response to intercepting a server payload message sent by the remote content server within the encrypted communication session, the server payload message including a server payload encrypted using a genuine application encryption key of the client device, relay the server payload message to the client device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 11 and 21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) made under Double Patenting. The examiner notes that an approved Terminal Disclaimer will overcome the rejection under Double Patenting.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN F WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-3826.
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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. 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.
/BRYAN F WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights