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 .
This action is in response to the claims filed 6/30/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 (a method), 8 (a machine), and 15 (a non-transitory CRM) are independent.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-7; 8, 10-14; 15, 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,368,298. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are an obvious variant of those patented in ‘298.
Presently presented claim groups 1, 3-7; 8, 10-14; 15, 17-20 are anticipated by claims 1-20 of ‘298.
Note that claims 2, 9, and 16 are excluded as the claims of ‘298 do not explicitly obtain a key from a node by another node.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims novel and non-obvious over the art of record.
The Hashmi and Kaufman publications (US 11,025,483 and “Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2”. do not disclose the claimed: "performing, by the first IKE node, a part of the rekeying process in which the first encryption key is replaced with a second encryption key for the IPSec communication session and another part of the rekeying process is handled by the second IKE node"
Specifically, in Hashmi the rekeying is done entirely by one of the VPN endpoint virtual machines. An updated search was performed, see PTO-892 and the references noted below. The closest art with respect to the amended feature is McAlister, US 2012/0096269, in which a plurality of IKE nodes are resident on an elastic gateway. However, McAlister assigns a rekeying process to a single vKEY instance and all subsequent requests are sent to the assigned vKEY instance. As such, although structurally similar, there is no IKE node other than the first IKE node to handle another part of the rekeying process.
None of the art of record anticipates or reasonably renders obvious the combination of features set forth in independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Asati et al., US 2009/0080657, discloses hierarchical key servers.
Grebus et al., US 2006/0002388, discloses an aliased IPsec cluster with IKE daemons.
McAlister, US 2012/0096269, discloses dynamically scalable virtual gateway appliances for IPSec encryption.
Hashmi, US 11,025,483, discloses failover and rekying in a IPSec middlebox.
Kaufman et al., “Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2” – discloses the specification for IKEv2, used in key agreement for IPSec.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W CHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-5165. The examiner can normally be reached M, W-F 8-5.
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, Rupal Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/MICHAEL W CHAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights