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
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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. 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/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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of patent no. 12,301,703. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite substantially the same limitations and are anticipated by the parent application.
“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 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).
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 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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tinnakornsrisuphap et al hereafter Tinnakornsrisuphap (US pat. App. Pub. 20090245517) and in view of Juels (US pat. 8700899).
4. As per claims 1, 11, and 20, Tinnakornsrisuphap discloses a method, a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium and an apparatus comprising: determining, by a device of a communication session, that a new has occurred within the communication session based on an indication obtained by the device, wherein the communication session has one or more member devices; generating, by the device and in response to the new, a new key encryption key and a key bundle comprising one or more keys to decrypt content of the communication session from one or more previous epochs of the communication session (paragraphs: 25-29, 71, 87-88, and 102-104; wherein it emphasizes a new key and group key will be generated in a device wherein the group key will decrypt the content of a network communication from previous communication session’s occurrence); encrypting, by the device, the key bundle with the new key encryption key to create an encrypted key bundle; and sharing, from the device, the encrypted key bundle with the one or more member devices to allow the one or more member devices to access the content of the communication session from the one or more previous (paragraphs: 10-14, 65, 78-82; wherein it elaborates encrypts the group key by using the new key to generate the encrypted group key and share the encrypted group key with plurality of member devices to allow member devices to access the content of the communication session from the previous occurrence). Although, Tinnakornsrisuphap discusses about a particular occurrence happens in a communication node that produce content which should be considered as new epoch to any ordinary skill in the art. He does not specifically mention the term epoch. However, in the same field of endeavor, Juels discloses a new epoch has occurred within the communication session (1:50-65, 2:1-15, and 5:20-50).
Accordingly, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the network security art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Juels’s teachings of a new epoch has occurred within the communication session with the teachings of Tinnakornsrisuphap, for the purpose of effectively protecting the new epoch from any unauthorized intruders during the network communication sessions.
5. As per claim 2, Tinnakornsrisuphap and in view of Juels discloses the method, wherein the key bundle is based on hierarchical content keys, and wherein the key bundle comprises a subset of a plurality of content keys from at least a last epoch of the one or more previous epochs of the communication session, the subset of the plurality of content keys sufficient to allow derivation of a remainder of the plurality of content keys from at least the last epoch (Tinnakornsrisuphap, paragraphs: 12, 14, 17).
6. As per claim 3, Tinnakornsrisuphap and in view of Juels discloses the method, wherein the key bundle is based on independent content keys, and wherein the key bundle comprises all of a plurality of content keys from at least a last epoch of the one or more previous epochs of the communication session (Tinnakornsrisuphap, paragraphs: 74, 75).
7. As per claim 4, Tinnakornsrisuphap and in view of Juels discloses the method, wherein the key bundle comprises a last key encryption key for a last key bundle for a last epoch of the communication session, wherein the one or more member devices are configured to daisy-chain backward to obtain one or more further previous key encryption keys for one or more corresponding further previous key bundles for one or more further previous epochs of the communication session (Tinnakornsrisuphap, paragraphs: 81, 82, 85) .
8. As per claim 5, Tinnakornsrisuphap and in view of Juels discloses the method, wherein the key bundle comprises all previous key encryption keys from all previous epochs of the communication session (Tinnakornsrisuphap, paragraphs: 11, 29).
9. As per claim 6, Tinnakornsrisuphap and in view of Juels discloses the method, wherein the key bundle comprises all previous content keys from all previous epochs of the communication session (Tinnakornsrisuphap, paragraphs: 69, 71).
10. As per claim 7, Tinnakornsrisuphap and in view of Juels discloses the method, wherein sharing the encrypted key bundle occurs either within the communication session or through a server access (Tinnakornsrisuphap, paragraphs: 84, 87).
11. As per claim 8, Tinnakornsrisuphap and in view of Juels discloses the method, wherein sharing further comprises: distributing information that allows the one or more member devices to derive the new key encryption key (Tinnakornsrisuphap, paragraphs: 88, 93).
14. As per claim 9, Tinnakornsrisuphap and in view of Juels discloses the method, wherein the key bundle is one of either per-sender or per-group (Tinnakornsrisuphap, paragraphs: 17, 19).
15. As per claim 10, Tinnakornsrisuphap and in view of Juels discloses the method, further comprising, in response to a particular member device leaving the communication session prior to an end of the communication session: sharing, after the end of the communication session, a final encrypted key bundle of the communication session with the particular member device to allow the particular member device to access a remainder of content of the communication session occurring after the particular member device left the communication session (Tinnakornsrisuphap, paragraphs: 64, 65, 67, and 78).
16. Claims 12-19 are listed all the same elements of claims 2-9. Therefore, the supporting rationales of the rejection to claims 2-9 apply equally as well to claims 12-19.
Citation of References
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are cited but not been replied upon for this office action:
El Soussi et al (US pat. app. Pub. 20140157382): discusses performing secure key exchange between a plurality of nodes of a communication network. The system comprises a master node and at least two slave nodes. In this context, the master node is configured to authenticate the at least two slave nodes with a pair-wise authentication key corresponding to each pair of master node and slave nodes. The master node is further configured to generate a group authentication key common to the plurality of nodes. Furthermore, the master node is configured to encrypt the group authentication key with the pair-wise authentication key for each respective pair of master node and slave nodes, thereby generating a respective encrypted group authentication key. Moreover, the master node is configured to communicate the encrypted group authentication key to the respective slave nodes.
OBA et al (US pat. App. Pub. 20120243683): elaborates that using a node that is a root node of a network forming a directed acyclic graph topology, which is composed of plural nodes including the node serving as the root node and having a parent-child relationship among nodes of adjacent hierarchies, includes a generating unit, an encrypting unit, and a transmitting unit. The generating unit generates a group key, and a list indicating a first node to which a distribution of the group key is inhibited. The encrypting unit encrypts the group key so as to be capable of being decrypted by a first child node other than the first node out of the child nodes of the root node. The transmitting unit transmits a first message, including an encrypted group key, which is the group key that is encrypted with respect to the first child node, and the list.
Conclusion
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD W REZA whose telephone number is (571)272-6590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cathy Thiaw can be reached on 571-270-1138. 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).
/MOHAMMAD W REZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407
Prosecution Insights