DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 20 June 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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, 7 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,375,463. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are subsumed byu the claims of the ‘463 Patent.
As to claim 1, the ‘463 Patent discloses a method for routing Internet Protocol Security (IPsec) data packets, the method comprising (Claim 1: A method for routing Internet Protocol Security (IPsec) data packets, the method comprising):
generating an IPsec data packet having a prefix comprising a Security Parameter Index (SPI) (Claim 1: generating, an IPsec data packet having a Security Parameter Index; assigning a prefix to the Security Parameter Index);
determining a routing protocol for load balancing of the IPsec data packet using the prefix of the SPI (Claim 1: the prefix providing routing information for routing the IPsec data packet to a particular Encapsulating Security Payload Processor (ESP processor) of a plurality of ESP processors; AND Claim 6: The method as in claim 1, wherein the IPSec data packet is routed using equal cost multi-path routing using the information in the prefix of the security parameter index (equal cost multi-path routing is a form of load balancing)); and
routing the IPsec data packet using the prefix of the SPI in accordance with the load balancing of the IPsec data packet to one or more Encapsulating Security Payload Processors (ESP processors) of a plurality of ESP processors (Claim 1: and routing the IPsec data packet to the particular ESP processor based on the routing information of the prefix of the Security Parameter Index.).
Claim 7 recites a system commensurate in scope to the method of claim 1 and is rejected under a substantially similar rationale particularly in view of claims 8-14 of the ‘463 Patent.
Claim 13 recites a computer readable medium commensurate in scope to the method of claim 1 and is rejected under a substantially similar rationale particularly in view of claims 15-20 of the ‘463 Patent.
Claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,375,463 in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0057108 by Hu.
As to claims 2, 8 and 14, the ‘463 Patent discloses all recited elements of claims 1, 7, and 13 from which claims 2, 8 and 14 depend.
The ‘463 Patent does not express disclose further comprising: executing a loading balancing of the IPsec data packet by employing an internet key exchange (IKE) management service.
Hu discloses executing a loading balancing of the IPsec data packet by employing an internet key exchange (IKE) management service (Hu: Page 1, Sec 16; “The control module 126 communicates a mapping list to the load balancer to thereby configure allocation of IPsec traffic by the load balancer 122 among the IPsec processing units 124 in accordance with one or more of Internet Key Exchange (IKE), Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP), Authentication Header (AH) Security Parameter Index (SPI) information associated with a particular IPsec packet or stream received by the load balancer 122.”).
The ’463 Patent and Hu are analogous art because they are from the common area of IPSec communication.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the IKE of Hu to perform the load balancing of the ‘463 Patent. The rationale would have been to have a means to allocate traffic (Hu: Page 1, Sec 7).
As to claims 3, 9 and 15, the ‘463 Patent as modified by Hu further discloses further comprising: assigning the prefix of a header comprising the SPI (Claim 1: assigning a prefix to the Security Parameter Index,) by the IKE management service.
As to claims 4, 10 and 16, the ‘463 Patent as modified by Hu further discloses further comprising: routing the IPsec data packet by at least one of Equal Cost Multi-path (ECMP) or by load balancing using the prefix of the header of the SPI (Claim 6: The method as in claim 1, wherein the IPSec data packet is routed using equal cost multi-path routing using the information in the prefix of the security parameter index).
As to claims 5, 11 and 17, the ‘463 Patent as modified by Hu further discloses further comprising: configuring the SPI of an initiator and the SPI of a responder wherein the prefix contains routing information (Claim 7: The method as in claim 1, wherein the IPsec data packet includes an initiator's security parameter index and a responder's security parameter index and wherein the prefix that includes routing information is part of the responder's security parameter index).
As to claims 6, 12 and 18, the ‘463 Patent as modified by Hu further discloses further comprising routing: using logic analogous to Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) for routing the IPsec data packet (Claim 2: The method as in claim 1, wherein the IPsec data packet is routed using logic analogous to Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) routing protocol).
As to claim 19, the ‘463 Patent as modified by Hu further discloses further comprising: generating multiple IPsec data packets, and assigning unique prefixes to the multiple IPsec data packets (Claim 4: The method as in claim 1, further comprising generating multiple IPsec data packets, and assigning different prefixes to each IPsec data packet).
As to claim 20, the ‘463 Patent as modified by Hu further discloses wherein the unique prefixes are configured to distribute the multiple IPsec data packets to different ESP processors (Claim 5: The method as in claim 4, wherein the different prefixes are configured to distribute the multiple IPsec data packets to different ESP processors).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patent No. 11,477,176 to Gupta et al. discloses routing packets to security
processers using security association information from the SPI
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S MCNALLY whose telephone number is (571)270-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached at (469)295-9235. 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 S. MCNALLY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2432
/Michael S McNally/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights