Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed 8/28/2025. Applicant has amended claim 15. Claims 1-14 and 22 are withdrawn. Accordingly, claims 15-21 and 23-25 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15-21 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. More specifically, independent claim 15 recites “wherein the multiple layers of access are configured to provide both external and internal security” but the specification does not sufficient describe how the multiple layers are configured to achieve the result (provide both external and internal security).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-21 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein the multiple layers of access are configured to provide both external and internal security” which renders the claims indefinite. More specifically, it is unclear whether 1) all of the multiple layers of access are configured to provide both external and internal security or 2) some layers are configured provide external security and some layers are configured to provide internal security. This raises questions as to the intended metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Appropriate correction is required.
All claims dependent from claim 15 inherit the same rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st and 2nd paragraphs.
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 (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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 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, 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 negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 15 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Merritt (US 2006/0015359 A1) in view of Krantz et al. (US 2004/0111520 A1) and Jain et al. (6,047,325).
As per Claim 15
Merritt (‘369) discloses
a plurality of gift cards, see at least paragraphs 0006-0008 (gift cards)
wherein the plurality of gift cards comprise at least one physical gift card, see at least paragraph 0019 (gift card…may comprise physical element) and paragraphs 0006-0008 (gift cards)
an enterprise infrastructure, the enterprise infrastructure comprising a processor, a non- transitory computer readable memory storing executable instructions executed by the processor, a plurality of local area networks, see at least paragraph 0026 (local area network (LAN); such networking environments are commonplace in …enterprise-wide computer networks), paragraph 0012 (computer-readable medium…set of instructions which when executed by a processor perform a method) and paragraph 0024 (processors)
Merritt (‘369) discloses a plurality of local area networks, see at least paragraph 0026 (local area network (LAN); such networking environments are commonplace in …enterprise-wide computer networks), but fails to explicitly disclose the networks are virtual local area networks wherein the plurality of virtual local area networks comprise multiple layers of access based on type and manner of access wherein each of the multiple layers of access are implemented by a designated virtual local area network of the plurality of virtual local area networks. Krantz (‘520) teaches a plurality of virtual local area networks wherein the plurality of virtual local area networks comprise multiple layers of access based on type and manner of access wherein each of the multiple layers of access are implemented by a designated virtual local area network of the plurality of virtual local area networks, see at least paragraph 0045 (enterprise-wide computer networks), paragraph 0017 (virtual local area networks VLANs) and paragraph 0032 (VLANs), paragraph 0052 (VLANs), paragraph 0052 (access to resources located on network can be restricted by the use of Virtual Local Area Networks VLANs; networks 411, 412 and 413 may each be a portion of a different VLAN), paragraph 0055 (VLAN…allow access to one network while restricting access to another network), paragraph 0060 (data routing device can be configured to separate network architecture into VLANs A, B, and C. Data routing device can be configured to transfer both tagged data frames and untagged data frames between the VLANs). Both Merritt and Krantz and directed toward enterprise-wide computer networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to modify Krantz’ invention to include the networks are virtual local area networks wherein the plurality of virtual local area networks comprise multiple layers of access based on type and manner of access wherein each of the multiple layers of access are implemented by a designated virtual local area network of the plurality of virtual local area networks. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of increasing security.
Merritt (‘369) discloses utilizing networks to provide data security, see at least paragraph 0026 (local area network; enterprise-wide computer networks; insure data security), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the multiple layers of access are configured to provide both external and internal security. Jain (‘325) teaches multiple layers of access are configured to provide both external and internal security, see at least column 5 lines 59-67 (virtual LANs) and column 6, lines 1-16 (Enterprise-wide security may be implemented to protect against both internal and external security breaches). Both Merritt and Jain and directed toward enterprise-wide computer networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to modify Krantz’ invention to include wherein the multiple layers of access are configured to provide both external and internal security. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of increasing security.
The claimed invention recited in depending claims 16-21 and 23-25 is not taught by the prior arts (effective filing data 7/27/2006) found in Examiner’s search. Even though primary reference Merritt (US 2006/0015359 A1) discloses physical gift cards and enterprise infrastructure comprising local area networks, it does not teach implementing security measures to access gift card account via computer system of a processor of gift card vendor using designated layers of virtual local area networks having multiple layers of security. The claimed invention recited in depending claim 16, considered as a whole including all the limitations from independent claim 15, is not taught by the prior arts found in examiner’s search. Claims 17-21 and 23-25 depend on claim 16 and includes all limitations from claim 16. Therefore no 102/103 rejection is provided.
Related But Not Relied Upon
Relevant prior art cited but not applied: Gai et al. US 2004/0160903 A1, directed to security groups of vlans.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
This argument with respect to the 103 rejection have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIA-YI LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1573. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9-8 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, RYAN DONLON can be reached at (571) 270-3602. 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.
/CHIA-YI LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692