DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in consideration of the Applicant’s response on October 1, 2025. Claims 1 and 13 are amended by the Applicant. Claims 9 and 10 are canceled. Claims 1, 4 – 6, 8 – 13, and 18 – 20, where Claims 1 and 13 are in independent form, are presented for examination.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 1, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed October 1, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued:
a) Regarding Claims 1 and 13, Rosenblum does not disclose or suggest that “the client machine identification criteria is retrieved from a memory of the gateway device and the MAC address of the client machine is retrieved based on and responsive to communications received by the gateway device from the client machine over the local communication interface.”
b) Regarding Claims 1 and 13, the combination of Rosenblum, Chambers, and Inoue does not disclose or suggest that “the communications received by the gateway device from the client machine comprises an IP address, the method further comprising deriving the MAC address of the client machine based on the IP address.”
The Office respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertions.
1. With regards to a), Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Rosenblum discloses that the client machine identification criteria is retrieved from a memory of the gateway device and the MAC address of the client machine is retrieved based on and responsive to communications received by the gateway device from the client machine over the local communication interface [Figs. 2A and 2B; Para. 0021-22, 0025]
2. With regards to b), Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Rosenblum discloses that the communications received by the gateway device from the client machine comprises an IP address [Para. 0019]. Inoue discloses of deriving the MAC address of the client machine based on the IP address [Fig. 4; Para. 0049]. During the interview, the Examiner discussed the deriving of the MAC address of the client machine based on the IP address. However, further clarification as to how the MAC address is derived was address, such as Para. 0175 of the applicant’s specification. Upon further search, the use of a sockaddr structure is well established in the art for deriving a MAC address from an IP address.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4 – 6, 8, 11 – 13, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PGPub. 2020/0153833 (hereinafter “Rosenblum”), in view of PGPub. 2014/0068705 (hereinafter “Chambers”), in further view of PGPub. 2008/0147776 (hereinafter “Inoue”).
3. Regarding Claims 1 and 13, Rosenblum discloses an internet gateway device [Fig. 1, item 12; Para. 0019; gateway] for authenticating client machines, comprising:
at least one network interface [Fig. 3; Para. 0037];
at least one local communication interface configured to communication with one or more client machines [Fig. 1 and 3; Para. 0037];
a memory configured to store one or more client machine identification criteria [Fig. 3; Para. 0036]; and
one or more processors coupled to the at least one network interface, the at least one local communication interface, and the memory, the one or more processors configured [Fig. 3; Para. 0036] to:
retrieve a client machine identification criteria comprising a known portion of a MAC (Media Access Control) address from the memory [Figs. 2A and 2B; Para. 0015-16, 0021-22, 0025; MAC whitelist],
receive a connection request, from a client machine via the at least one local communication interface, to allow the client machine to access the internet [Figs. 2A and 2B; Para. 0015-16, 0021-22, 0025],
retrieve a MAC address of the client machine based on communication with the client machine [Figs. 2A and 2B; Para. 0015-16, 0021-22, 0025],
determine whether the retrieved MAC address of the client machine includes the known portion of a MAC address [Figs. 2A and 2B; Para. 0021-22, 0025],
provide access to the internet to the client machine via the at least one network interface when the MAC address of the client machine includes the known portion of a MAC address based on the determination [Figs. 2A and 2B; Para. 0021-22, 0025; MAC whitelist], and
at least one of reject the connection and drop the connection when the MAC address of the client machine does not include the known portion of a MAC address [Figs. 2A and 2B; Para. 0021-22, 0025; not on whitelist];
wherein the client machine identification criteria is retrieved from a memory of the gateway device and the MAC address of the client machine is retrieved based on and responsive to communications received by the gateway device from the client machine over the local communication interface [Figs. 2A and 2B; Para. 0021-22, 0025; whitelist];
wherein the communications received by the gateway device from the client machine comprises an IP address [Para. 0019],
Rosenblum, however, does not specifically disclose that the known portion of a MAC address is less than an entire MAC address or that the method further comprising deriving the MAC address of the client machine based on the IP address.
Chambers discloses a system and method for controlling access to the internet through the use of access control policies/rules [Abstract; Para. 0025]. Chambers further discloses that the access control policies can be implemented to allow wildcards or range of values to the MAC address field (known portion of a MAC address is less than an entire MAC address) for a group of devices [Para. 0048]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the current invention to incorporate the teachings of Chambers with Rosenblum since both systems utilize access control policies to allow internet access for devices. The motivation to do so is that specifying access policies for groups or types of devices simplify the configuration of access policies and can provide additional layering of policies for the administrator, such as default policies for certain types of devices and specific policies for a few specific devices (e.g., administrator’s device).
Chambers, however, does not disclose or suggest that the method further comprising deriving the MAC address of the client machine based on the IP address.
Inoue discloses a system and method for filtering communications [Abstract]. Inoue further discloses of deriving the MAC address of the client machine based on the IP address [Fig. 4; Para. 0049]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to incorporate the teachings of Inoue with Rosenblum since they both establish filtering policies for communications. The combination utilizes known routing techniques for layer 2 communications that are described in Rosenblum (use of known technology in the art).
4. Regarding Claim 4, Rosenblum, in view of Chambers and Inoue, discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Rosenblum further discloses that providing internet access to the client machine is via a network interface [Figs. 2A-2B, 5A and 5B; Para. 0066-68, 0077, 0083, 0085].
3. Regarding Claim 5, Rosenblum, in view of Chambers and Inoue, discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Rosenblum further discloses that the client machine identification criteria is retrieved from a configuration file comprising a plurality of client machine identification criteria stored at the gateway device [Figs. 2A and 2B; Para. 0021-22, 0025; whitelist].
4. Regarding Claim 6, Rosenblum, in view of Chambers and Inoue, discloses the limitations of Claim 5. Rosenblum further discloses that the plurality of client machine identification criteria is indicative of a plurality of client machines authenticated for communication with the gateway device over the local communication interface [Figs. 2A and 2B; Para. 0021-22, 0025; whitelist].
7. Regarding Claim 8, Rosenblum, in view of Chambers and Inoue, discloses the limitations of Claim 7. Chambers further discloses that the known portion of the MAC address corresponds to at least one of a prefix portion of the MAC address, a wildcard portion of the MAC address, and a suffix portion of the MAC address [Para. 0048].
8. Regarding Claims 11 and 18, Rosenblum, in view of Chambers and Inoue, discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 13. Rosenblum further discloses that configuring the gateway device for client machine filtering based, in part, on storing the client machine identification criteria at the gateway device [Figs. 2A and 2B; Para. 0021-22, 0025; whitelist].
9. Regarding Claims 12 and 19, Rosenblum, in view of Chambers and Inoue, discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 13. Rosenblum further discloses of:
determining that the client machine identification criteria is stored at the gateway device [Figs. 2A and 2B; Para. 0021-22, 0025; whitelist], and
in response thereto, determining that the gateway device is configured for client machine filtering [Figs. 2A and 2B; Para. 0021-22, 0025; whitelist].
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenblum, in view of Chambers, in further view of PGPbu .2014/0313882 (hereinafter “Rucker”).
10. Regarding Claim 20, Rosenblum, in view of Chambers, discloses the limitations of Claim 13. Rosenblum further discloses the use of cellular networks for communications [Para. 0019]. Rosenblum, Chambers, and Inoue, however, do not specifically discloses using a subscriber identification module (SIM) card to route communications via the at least one network interface to at least one cellular network.
Rucker discloses of a gateway device that is used to manage communications between devices [Abstract]. Rucker further discloses that the gateway device can detect cellular connections and comprises dual SIM cards (using a subscriber identification module (SIM) card to route communications via the at least one network interface to at least one cellular network) [Para. 0106; Claim 3]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the current invention to incorporate the teachings of Rucker with Rosenblum since both systems manage communication traffic between devices. The combination is an obvious utilization of known technologies for communications in cellular networks, such as the one described in Rosenblum (use of known technology in the art).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. PGPub. 2016/0007201; PGPub. 2020/0036717.
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tae K. Kim, whose telephone number is (571) 270-1979. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (10:00 AM - 6:30 PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jorge Ortiz-Criado, can be reached on (571) 272-7624. The fax phone number for submitting all Official communications is (703) 872-9306. The fax phone number for submitting informal communications such as drafts, proposed amendments, etc., may be faxed directly to the examiner at (571) 270-2979.
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).
/TAE K KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496