m Attorney Docket No. 290.1078USN
`
`10/27/09
`
`- 15
`
`the proposed combination in general.
`
`This
`
`is clearly not
`
`the
`
`obviousness standard set out by the courts.
`
`The Examiner
`
`seems to use his own subjeCtive standard
`
`
`
`IO]:
`
`
`
`what he thinks
`
`thouL finding support
`
`IDCS.
`d r f
`cit
`
`are good rationale
`
`
`for the asserted rationale in th
`
`
`for the combination wi
`
`I)
`
`this subjective or personal standard 0;
`
`Applicants submit
`
`that
`
`the Examiner is not what
`
`the courts have ruled to be the
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`15
`
`2O
`
`25
`
`proper standard.
`
`According to M.P.E.P. 2142,
`
`
`
`"actually supporting any prima facie conclusion 0;
`
`burden o
`
`
`
`“the examiner bears the initial
`
`obviousness.
`
`If
`
`the examiner does not produce a prima facie
`
`case,
`
`the applicant is under no obligation to submit evidence
`
`
`0: nonobviousness”
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`It
`
`is respectfully
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`submitted that the Examiner has not
`
`
`factually supported the
`
`
`
`Applicants cannOt see
`
`
`
`
`“one of
`
`the
`
`prima
`
`facie conclusion 0:
`
`obviousness.
`
`
`
`
`
`that any of th cit d r f
`
`r nc s discusses that
`
`
`
`most
`
`important
`
`
`factors that has shaped the computer and
`
`
`
`
`“di”erenL computers,
`
`ne
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`with each other is always at
`
`
`that allowing for
`
`to communicate
`
`
`
`networking industry is compatibility” or
`
`"erent
`or di
`twor<s,
`
`
`ront O
`
`the
`ore
`i designer’s
`
` find that
`the cited
`
`mind.” Additionally,
`
`applicants cannot
`
`
`references mention that since “very sensitive information can
`
`
`
`be passed over an un-trusted network SJCh as
`
`engineers are always looking
`
` for ways
`
`to bee:
`
`the Internet,
`
` f-up security,
`
`and
`
`make it harder
`
`for hackers to intercept
`
`their Internet
`
`
`
`
`
`0351
`
`Ex. 1005 (Part 2 of 2)
`
`Apple V. MPH Techs. Oy
`IPR2019-00823
`
`0351
`
`Ex. 1005 (Part 2 of 2)
`Apple v. MPH Techs. Oy
`IPR2019-00823
`
`

`

`10
`
`15
`
`20
`
`m Attorney Docket No. 290.1078USN 1wmm9
`
`””'
`II
`
`
`
`1c.
`tra
`
`
`It is respectfully submitted that the above text
`
`
`
`
`segments are merely speculations on behal
`o
`
`the Examiner and
`
`—
`
`l6 —
`
`that the rationale provided by the Examiner is not supported
`I)
`
`
`
`in th cit d r l r nc s. Because a prima facie conclusion 0;
`
`
`
`ice
`
`
`
`obviousness has not been provided in the present 0
`
`ACtion, Applicants respectfully request reconsideration and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`withdrawal 0: this ground for rejection.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`prior to the next action on the merits of
`
`this application.
`
`0352
`
`7. Conclusion
`
`
`
`
`Based on the foregoing, Applicants respectfully request that
`
`
`the various grounds for rejeCtion in the 0 ”ice Action be
`
`
`
`
`
`
`reconsidered and withdrawn with respect to the previously
`
`
`
`amended form 0:
`
`
`the claims, and that a Notice 0: Allowance be
`
`
`issued for the present application to pass to issuance.
`
`
`
`
`In the event any further matters remain at issue with respect
`
`
`
`to the present application, Applicants respectfully request
`
`that
`
`the Examiner please contact the undersigned below at the
`
`
` telephone number indicated in order to discuss such matter
`
`
`
`0352
`
`

`

`10
`
`15
`
`20
`
`25
`
`m Attorney Docket No.
`
`290.1078USN 10/27/09
`
`-
`
`l7 —
`
`The application is submitted to be in condition for allowance,
`
`and such action is respectfully requested.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`FASTH LAW OFFICES
`
`[rfasthz
`Rolf Fasth
`
`____________———
`
`Registration No.
`
`36,999
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. 290.1078USN
`
`FASTH LAW OFFICES
`
`26 Pinecrest Plaza, Suite
`NC 28387-
`Southern Pines,
`
`2
`4301
`
`Telephone:
`Facsimile:
`
`(9;
`
`(9; 0)
`
`0)
`
`687-0001
`295—2152
`
`0353
`
`0353
`
`

`

`
`
`For: METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR
`SENDING A MESSAGE THROUGH A
`
`
`SECURE CONNECT—ON
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Je "rey K. Seto
`
`Serial No.
`
`Filed:
`
`Examiner:
`
` Date:
`
`Attorney Docket No. 290.1078USN
`RF:ss
`10/29/09
`
`PATENT
`
`IN TFE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`In re application 0;
`
`Sami Vaarala, Antti Nuopponen
`
`l0/500,930
`
`
`
`L9 OCtober 2035
`
`2458
`Art Unit
`
`Confirmation No. 1571
`
`CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
`
`I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PAPER AND THE DOCUMENTS
`REFERRED TO AS BEING ATTACHED OR ENCLOSED HEREWITH
`ARE BEING SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY TO THE UNITED
`STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ON 29 October
`2009.
`
`/rfasth/
`
`
`
` Ro': Fasth
`
`
`
`Attorney for Applicant
`
`
`
`29 October 2039
`
`TRANSMITTAL LETTER
`
`ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION
`COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box I450
`
`Alexandria, VA
`
`22313—1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Enclosed or ”iling in the above-referenced application are the
`
`
` tol'owing:
`
`
`
`
`
`(X) Response to O"”ice Action dated 16 September 2009.
`(X)
`The Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any fees
`
`
`
`which may be required in connection with the ”iling O" this
`correspondence, or credit over-payment,
`to Account
`No. 06-0243.
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectjully submitted,
`
`
`
`FASTH LAW OFFICES
`
`
`jasth/
`/r
`
`
`Rolj Fasth
`
`
`
`
`
`oration No. 36,999
`
`Regis
`
`FASTH LAW OFFICES
`
`26 Pinecrest Plaza, Suite 2
`Southern Pines, North Carolina
`Telephone: 9LO-687-OOOI
`
`Facsimile: 9’0-295-2152
`
`28387-4301
`
`Attorney Docket No. 290.1078USN
`
`0354
`
`0354
`
`

`

`Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt
`
`6351930
`
`Application Number:
`
`10500930
`
`International Application Number:
`
`Confirmation Number:
`
`Title of Invention:
`
`Method and system for sending a message through a secure connection
`
`
`
`First Named Inventor/Applicant Name:
`
`Sami Vaarala
`
`Customer Number:
`
`33369
`
`Rolf Fasth/Sloan Smith
`
`Filer Authorized By:
`
`Rolf Fasth
`
`Attorney Docket Number:
`
`290.1078USN
`
`Receipt Date:
`
`29—OCT-2009
`
`Filing Date:
`
`19-OCT-2005
`
`Time Stamp:
`
`06:11:46
`
`Application Type:
`
`US. National Stage under 35 USC 371
`
`Payment information:
`
`Submitted with Payment
`
`File Listing:
`
`Document
`Number
`
`Document Descri
`
`tion
`
`p
`
`File Size(Bytes)/
`Message Digest
`
`Pages
`Multi
`Part /.zip (if appl.)
`
`93cd1 d
`
`AMD.PDF
`
`578dfbd84b58a1bc431d916ba45047b5d6
`
`0355
`
`0355
`
`

`

`Multipart Description/PDF files in .zip description
`
`Document Description
`
`Amendment/Req. Reconsideration-After Non- Final Reject
`
`Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment
`
`
`
`Miscellaneous Incoming Letter
`
`TRX.PDF
`
`2b39e33e04al935f680007763e651lbc8c8
`ecf78
`
`This Acknowledgement Receipt evidences receipt on the noted date by the USPTO ofthe indicated documents,
`characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable. It serves as evidence of receipt similar to a
`Post Card, as described in MPEP 503.
`
`New Applications Under 35 U.S.C. 111
`lfa new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary components for a filing date (see 37 CFR
`1.53(b)-(d) and MPEP 506), a Filing Receipt (37 CFR 1.54) will be issued in due course and the date shown on this
`Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the filing date of the application.
`
`National Stage of an International Application under 35 U.S.C. 371
`lfa timely submission to enter the national stage of an international application is compliant with the conditions of 35
`U.S.C. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCT/DO/EO/903 indicating acceptance of the application as a
`national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt, in due course.
`
`New International Application Filed with the USPTO as a Receiving Office
`lfa new international application is being filed and the international application includes the necessary components for
`an international filing date (see PCT Article 11 and MPEP 1810), a Notification of the International Application Number
`and ofthe International Filing Date (Form PCT/RO/105) will be issued in due course, subject to prescriptions concerning
`national security, and the date shown on this Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the international filing date of
`the application.
`
`0356
`
`0356
`
`

`

`PTO/SB/06 (07-06)
`Approved for use through 1/31/2007. OMB 0651-0032
`US. Patent and Trademark Office; US. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`Under the Paoerwork Reduction Act of 1995, no oersons are reouired to resoond to a collection of information unless it disola s a valid OMB control number.
`
`PATENT APPLICATION FEE DETERMINATION RECORD
`Substitute for Form PTO-875
`
`Application or Docket Number
`10/500,930
`
`Fiiing Date
`10/19/2005
`
`I: To be Mailed
`
`OR
`
`OTHER THAN
`SMALL ENTITY
`
`SMALL ENTITY IXI
`RATE ($)
`FEE ($)
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`APPLICATION AS FILED — PART I
`
`0
`
`(Column 1)
`NUMBER FILED
`
`(Column 2)
`NUMBER EXTRA
`
`I:I BASIC FEE
`37CFR1.16a, b,or c
`
`I] SEARCH FEE
`37CFR1.16k, i,or m
`
`I] EXAMINATION FEE
`(37 CFR1.16( ), (p), or (q))
`TOTAL CLAIMS
`37 CFR 1.16 i
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`37 CFR 1.16 h
`
`DAPPLICATION SIZE FEE
`(37 CFR1.16(s))
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`minus 20 =
`
`minus 3 =
`
`If the Specification and drawings exceed 100
`Sheets of paper, the application Size fee due
`iS $250 ($125 for small entity) for each
`additional 50 Sheets or fraction thereof. See
`35 U.S.C. 41 a 1 G and 37 CFR 1.16 S.
`
`[I MULTIPLE DEPENDENT CLAIM PRESENT (37 CFR1.16(j))
`* If the difference in column 1 is less than zero, enter“0" in column 2.
`
`APPLICATION AS AMENDED — PART II
`
`(Column 1)
`CLAIMS
`REMAINING
`AFTER
`AMENDMENT
`
`27
`
`10/29/2009
`
`37CFR1.16h
`
`(Column 2)
`HIGHEST
`NUMBER
`PREVIOUSLY
`PAID FOR
`
`(Column 3)
`
`PRESENT
`
`Minus
`
`Minus
`
`** 27
`
`3
`
`El Application Size Fee (37 CFR 1.16(s))
`
`D FIRST PRESENTATION OF MULTIPLE DEPENDENT CLAIM (37 CFR1.16(j))
`
`SMALL ENTITY
`
`OR
`
`OTH ER THAN
`SMALL ENTITY
`
`ADDITIONAL
`FEE ($)
`
`RATE ($)
`
`X $26:
`
`X $110:
`
`ADDITIONAL
`FEE ($)
`
`RATE (38)
`
`X 69
`X 69
`
`II
`
`I—
`IJ
`
`ZL
`
`EDZL
`
`IJ
`
`E<
`
`AMENDMENT
`
`/ANN|E C. SINGLETON/
`
`(Column 2)
`HIGHEST
`NUMBER
`PREVIOUSLY
`PAID FOR
`
`(Column 3)
`
`PRESENT
`EXTRA
`
`RATE ($)
`
`ADDITIONAL
`FEE (3;)
`
`RATE ($)
`
`ADDITIONAL
`FEE ($)
`
`(Column 1)
`CLAIMS
`REMAINING
`AFTER
`
`- AMENDMENT
`
`1 16 I
`
`37 CFR 1.16 h
`
`Minus
`
`Minus
`
`D Application Size Fee (37 CFR 1.16(s))
`
`D FIRST PRESENTATION OF MULTIPLE DEPENDENT CLAIM (37 CFR1.16(j))
`
`XX 6969
`
`OR
`
`OR
`
`TOTAL
`ADD‘L
`FEE
`
`* If the entry in column 1 is less than the entry in column 2, write “0" in column 3.
`** If the “Highest Number Previously Paid For" IN THIS SPACE is less than 20, enter “20".
`*** If the “Highest Number Previously Paid For" IN THIS SPACE is less than 3, enter “3‘.
`The “Highest Number Previously Paid For" (Total or Independent) is the highest number found in the appropriate box in column 1.
`This collection of information is required by 37 CFR 1.16. The information is required to obtain or retain a benefit by the public which is to file (and by the USPTO to
`process) an application. Confidentiality is governed by 35 U.S.C. 122 and 37 CFR 1.14. This collection is estimated to take 12 minutes to complete, including gathering,
`preparing, and submitting the completed application form to the USPTO. Time will vary depending upon the individual case. Any comments on the amount of time you
`require to complete this form and/or suggestions for reducing this burden, should be sent to the Chief Information Officer, US. Patent and Trademark Office, US.
`Department of Commerce, PO. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. DO NOT SEND FEES OR COMPLETED FORMS TO THIS
`ADDRESS. SEND TO: Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
`If you need assistance in completing the form, call 1-800-PTO-9199 and select option 2.
`
`Legal Instrument Examiner:
`
`0357
`
`0357
`
`

`

`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313- 1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`
`
`
` F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`
`
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`10/500,930
`
`10/19/2005
`
`Sami Vaarala
`
`290.1078USN
`
`1571
`
`33369
`
`7590
`
`09/16/2009
`
`FASTH LAW OFFICES(ROLFFASTH)
`26 PINECREST PLAZA, SUITE 2
`SOUTHERN PINES, NC 28387-4301
`
`SETO, JEFFREY K
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2458
`
`
`
`
`NOT *ICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`09/ 1 6/2009
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`sloan.smith@fasthlaw.c0m
`nan_russell@ fasthlaw.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`0358
`
`0358
`
`

`

`
`
`Application No.
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`10/500,930
`
`VAARALA ET AL.
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Examiner
`
`Jeffrey Seto
`
`Art Unit
`
`2458 -
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS,
`WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`In no event however may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1)IXI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 29 June 2009.
`
`2a)I:I This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)IZI This action is non-final.
`
`3)I:I Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under EX parte Quayle, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`4)IZI CIaim(s)1-_27is/are pending in the application.
`
`4a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`5)I:I Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`6)IXI CIaim(s)1-_27 is/are rejected.
`
`7)I:I Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`8)I:I Claim(s) _ are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`Application Papers
`
`9)I:I The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`
`
`10)I:I The drawing(s) filed on
`
`is/are: a)I:I accepted or b)I:I objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`11)I:I The oath or declaration is objected to by the Examiner. Note the attached Office Action or form PTO-152.
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)I:I Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)—(d) or (f).
`
`a)I:I AII
`
`b)I:I Some * c)I:I None of:
`
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attach ment(s)
`
`1) D Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`2) D Notice of Draftsperson‘s Patent Drawing Review (PTO-948)
`3) |:| Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date
`.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`4) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date. _
`5) I:I Notice of Informal Patent Application
`6) D Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 08-06)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20090908
`
`0359
`
`0359
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/500,930
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2458
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1-27 are pending.
`
`Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
`
`2.
`
`A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set
`
`forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this
`
`application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set
`
`forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action
`
`has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6-29-
`
`2009 has been entered.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`3.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 6-29-2009 have been fully considered but they are
`
`not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s argument that Linnakangas does not teach the
`
`intermediate computer uses the same secure connection without establishing a new
`
`secure connection and without involving the second computer. Linnakangas teaches an
`
`intermediate computer (lP forwarder) that receives packets and forwards the packets to
`
`their destination using a secure association (SA) (See paragraph 8, lines 1-5; wherein
`
`using the same secure association, is using the same secure connection).
`
`Regarding Applicant’s argument that there is no secure connection between local
`
`host 5 and router 2 in Linnakangas. Linnakangas teaches a method for providing
`
`Internet Protocol Security (lPSec) for communicating over un-trusted networks such as
`
`0360
`
`0360
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/500,930
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2458
`
`the Internet 3 (See par.’s 1 & 2). Local host 5 and router 2 are both on a corporate
`
`Local Area Network (LAN) 1 (See par. 24, lines 1-3). Providing a secure connection
`
`between nodes on a private LAN is inherent and discussing such security would be
`
`repetitive. Linnakangas details the processing that goes on when traffic traverses the
`
`Internet, such as traffic between router 2 and remote host 4 (See par. 24, lines 3-8).
`
`While traffic between router 2 and remote host 4 is discussed in detail in Linnakangas,
`
`the destination of the traffic sent from remote host 4, is local host 5 (See par. 24, lines
`
`6-7).
`
`Regarding Applicant’s argument that Linnakangas does not teach a secure
`
`connection extending between the source address of the first computer as a first end
`
`point and a destination address of the second computer as a second end point of the
`
`secure connection. Linnakangas teaches that the establishment of a secure connection
`
`between a first end point and a second end point, wherein both end points are user
`
`terminals (See par. 5, lines 1-6). Linnakangas further teaches that the intermediate
`
`computer (or IP forwarder) receives packets from a source and forwards them to their
`
`destination, over a secure association (See par. 8, lines 1-5).
`
`Regarding Applicant’s argument that there is no rationale for combining
`
`Linnakangas and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA). Both Linnakangas and AAPA
`
`deal with networking and providing secure connections between nodes. One of the
`
`most important factors that has shaped the computer and networking industry is
`
`compatibility. Allowing for different computers, or different networks, to communicate
`
`with each other is always at the forefront of designers’ minds. Thus, adding flexibility by
`
`0361
`
`0361
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/500,930
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2458
`
`allowing different networks to communicate is proper motivation for combining these
`
`related references.
`
`Regarding Applicant’s argument that there is no rationale for combining
`
`Linnakangas and Sandhu. Both Linnakangas and Sandhu deal with providing for
`
`secure communications over the Internet. Since very sensitive information can be
`
`passed over an un-trusted network such as the Internet, engineers are always looking
`
`for ways to beef-up security, and make it harder for hackers to intercept their Internet
`
`traffic. Sandhu provides an additional layer of security that can be used in the system of
`
`Linnakangas to make it harder for hackers to intercept and decode Internet traffic.
`
`Thus, sufficient motivation exists to combine Sandhu with Linnakangas.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that
`
`form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
`
`(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by
`another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent
`granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the
`applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section
`351 (a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States
`only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2)
`of such treaty in the English language.
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1-5, 7-10, 22-24, 26 & 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being
`
`anticipated by US. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0047487 to Linnakangas, et
`
`al. (Linnakangas).
`
`0362
`
`0362
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/500,930
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2458
`
`Regarding claim 1, Linnakangas teaches a method for secure forwarding of a message
`
`from a first computer to a second computer via an intermediate computer in a
`
`telecommunication network(See paragraph 24, lines 4-8; wherein the local host 5 is the
`
`first computer, remote host 4 is the second computer, and router 2 is the intermediate
`
`computer), comprising: establishing a secure connection between the first computer and
`
`the second computer via the intermediate computer (See par. 24, lines 4-11; wherein
`
`message formation is inherent in “communication” and “exchanging user generated
`
`traffic”), the secure connection extending between a source address of the first
`
`computer as a first end point and a destination address of the second computer as a
`
`second end point of the secure connection (See par. 8, lines 1-5; wherein the
`
`destination of the packets is the second computer) in the first computer, forming a
`
`secure message by giving the secure message a first unique identity and a first
`
`destination address to the intermediate computer (See par.’s 4 & 24; wherein the SPI
`
`is
`
`the unique identity, and the header inherently includes the destination address), sending
`
`the secure message from the first computer to the intermediate computer (See par. 24,
`
`lines 4-6), the intermediate computer receiving the secure message and performing a
`
`translation by using the first unique identity to find a second destination address to the
`
`second computer, (See par.'s 4 & 24; wherein a router that is able to perform lPSec and
`
`IKE translation, inherently includes a translation table), the intermediate computer
`
`substituting the first destination address with the second destination address to the
`
`second computer (See par.’s 4 & 24; wherein address substitution is a standard part of
`
`lPSec processing and IKE translation), the intermediate computer substituting the first
`
`0363
`
`0363
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/500,930
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2458
`
`unique identity with a second unique identity of the secure connection without
`
`establishing a new secure connection and without involving the second computer, (See
`
`par.’s 4 & 24; wherein generating and substituting SPl’s is a standard part of lPSec
`
`processing and IKE translation; and, par. 8, lines 1-5; wherein a secure association, is
`
`the secure connection), and the intermediate computer forwarding the secure message
`
`with the second destination address and the second unique identity to the second
`
`computer in the secure connection (See par. 24, line 11).
`
`2.
`
`Regarding claim 2, Linnakangas discloses forming the secure message in step b)
`
`by using an lPSec connection between the first computer and the second computer
`
`(See par. 24, lines 4-7).
`
`3.
`
`Regarding claim 3, Linnakangas discloses performing a secure forwarding of the
`
`message by making use of SSL or TLS protocols (See par. 24, lines 4-7; wherein using
`
`a secure socket layer (SSL) is inherent in lPSec).
`
`4.
`
`Regarding claim 4, Linnakangas discloses manually performing a preceding
`
`distribution of keys to components for forming the lPSec connection (See par. 40, lines
`
`8-12; wherein manual distribution occurs when the IKE module is responding to a
`
`request).
`
`5.
`
`Regarding claim 5, Linnakangas discloses performing a preceding distribution of
`
`keys for forming the lPSec connection by an automated key exchange protocol (See
`
`par. 40, lines 8-12; wherein automated key exchange occurs when the IKE module
`
`initiates negotiations).
`
`0364
`
`0364
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/500,930
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2458
`
`6.
`
`Regarding claim 7, Linnakangas teaches sending the message that is sent from
`
`the first computer as a packet that contains message data, an inner lP header
`
`containing the actual sender and receiver addresses, an outer lP header containing the
`
`addresses of the first computer and the intermediate computer (See par. 3, lines 1-6).
`
`7.
`
`Regarding claim 8, Linnakangas teaches the lPSec connection being one or
`
`more security associations (SA) and the unique identity being one or more SPI values
`
`(See par. 4, lines 5-14).
`
`8.
`
`Regarding claim 9, Linnakangas teaches performing the matching in step d)
`
`by using a translation table stored at the intermediate computer (See par. 31, lines 1-6;
`
`wherein the IP forwarder module is part of the intermediate computer).
`
`9.
`
`Regarding claim 10, Linnakangas teaches changing both the address and
`
`the SPI-value by the intermediate computer (See par. 24; wherein lPSec includes
`
`replacing addresses in accordance with the translation tables, and assigning a new SPI
`
`value to every received packet).
`
`10.
`
`Regarding claim 22, Linnakangas teaches a telecommunication network for
`
`secure forwarding of messages, comprising: a first computer, a second computer and
`
`an intermediate computer, the first and the second computers having a secure
`
`connection therebetween via the intermediate computer (See par. 24, lines 1-15;
`
`wherein local host 5 is the first computer, remote host 4 is the second computer, and
`
`router 2 is the intermediate computer), the secure connection having a source address
`
`of the first computer as a first end point and a destination address of the second
`
`computer as a second end point (See par.'s 5, lines 1-6, and par. 8, lines 1-5), the first
`
`0365
`
`0365
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/500,930
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2458
`
`and the second computers having means for performing an lPSec processing, the
`
`intermediate computer having translation means for using translation tables to perform
`
`lPSec and IKE translation (See par. 14, lines 1-5) and for changing a destination
`
`address of the intermediate computer of a secure message to a destination address of
`
`the second computer, and the intermediate computer having means for fon/varding the
`
`secure message received from the first computer to the second computer in the secure
`
`connection (See par. 8, lines 1-5).
`
`11.
`
`Regarding claim 23, Linnakangas teaches the translation table for lPSec
`
`translation has IP addresses of the intermediate computer to be matched with IP
`
`addresses of the second computer (See par. 24, lines 4-6; wherein the router inherently
`
`has translation tables to perform lPSec).
`
`12.
`
`Regarding claim 24, Linnakangas teaches the translation tables for IKE
`
`translation consists of two partitions, one for the communication between the first
`
`computer and the intermediate computer and another for the communication between
`
`the intermediate computer and the second computer (See par. 24, lines 4-8; wherein
`
`the router (or intermediate computer) inherently includes at least two translation tables
`
`(or partitions), since one translation table is required for each lPSec connection, and
`
`there are at least two lPSec connections).
`
`13.
`
`Regarding claim 26, Linnakangas teaches another translation table for IKE
`
`translation containing fields for matching a given user to a given second computer (See
`
`par. 24, lines 8-11; wherein each remote host must establish a new secure connection,
`
`which includes a new translation table).
`
`0366
`
`0366
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/500,930
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 2458
`
`14.
`
`Regarding claim 27, this claim recites a network for carrying out the method of
`
`claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set
`forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`15.
`
`Claims 6, 11-14 & 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Linnakangas, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Applicant's
`
`Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
`
`16.
`
`Regarding claim 6, Linnakangas teaches the invention as described in claim 5.
`
`Linnakangas does not teach performing the automated key exchange protocol used for
`
`the preceding distribution of keys for forming the IP Sec connection by means of a
`
`modified IKE key exchange protocol between the first computer and the intermediate
`
`computer and by means of a standard IKE key exchange protocol between the
`
`intermediate computer and the second computer. However, AAPA teaches a
`
`modified IKE key exchange protocol between the first computer and the intermediate
`
`computer (See page 8, lines 27-29; wherein the key exchange is modified to support
`
`NAT traversal) and a standard IKE key exchange protocol between the intermediate
`
`computer and the second computer (See p. 8, lines 29-32).
`
`0367
`
`0367
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/500,930
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 2458
`
`Using the features of AAPA in the system of Linnakangas would have added
`
`flexibility by allowing different networks to connect to the system. Therefore, it would
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to
`
`combine the teachings of AAPA and Linnakangas.
`
`17.
`
`Regarding claim 11, Linnakangas teaches the invention as described in claim 1.
`
`Linnakangas does not teach the first computer being a mobile terminal, so that the
`
`mobility is enabled by modifying the translation table at the intermediate
`
`computer. However, AAPA teaches this limitation (See p. 7, lines 10-16).
`
`Using the features of AAPA in the system of Linnakangas would have broadened
`
`the appeal and applicability of the system by allowing mobile units to connect to the
`
`network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the
`
`time of the invention, to combine the teachings of AAPA and Linnakangas.
`
`18.
`
`Regarding claim 12, Linnakangas, in view of AAPA, teach the invention as
`
`described in claim 11. Linnakangas further teaches performing the modification of the
`
`translation tables by sending a request for registration of the new address from the first
`
`computer to the intermediate computer (See p. 3, par.’s 46-51).
`
`19.
`
`Regarding claim 13, Linnakangas, in view of AAPA, teach the invention as
`
`described in claim 12. Linnakangas further teaches sending a reply to the request for
`
`registration from the intermediate computer to the first computer (See p. 3, par. 50).
`
`20.
`
`Regarding claim 14, Linnakangas, in view of AAPA, teach the invention as
`
`described in claim 12. Linnakangas further teaches authenticating or encrypting by
`
`lPSec the request for registration and/or reply (See p. 3, par. 62).
`
`0368
`
`0368
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/500,930
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 2458
`
`21.
`
`Regarding claim 20, Linnakangas teaches the invention as described in claim 1.
`
`Linnakangas does not teach sending the secure message by using an lPSec transport
`
`mode. However, AAPA teaches this limitation (See p. 4, lines 14-19).
`
`Using the features of AAPA in the system of Linnakangas would have added
`
`improved security to the system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to combine the teachings of AAPA
`
`and Linnakangas.
`
`22.
`
`Regarding claim 21, Linnakangas teaches the invention as described in claim 1.
`
`Linnakangas does not teach sending the secure message by using an lPSec tunnel
`
`mode. However, AAPA teaches this limitation (See p. 4, lines 21-29).
`
`Using the features of AAPA in the system of Linnakangas would have added
`
`improved security and flexibility to the system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to combine the teachings of
`
`AAPA and Linnakangas.
`
`23.
`
`Claims 15-19 & 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Linnakangas, as applied to claims 4 & 24 above, in view of U.S. Patent Number
`
`6,985,953 issued to Sandh