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 .
Response to Amendment
This is a reply to the request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on 01/12/2026, in which Claim(s) 1-30 are presented for examination. Claim(s) 1, 11, and 21 are amended. No claim(s) are cancelled or newly added.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Argument
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-30 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant is encouraged to schedule an interview with the Examiner prior to the next communication to compact prosecution of the case.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 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.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz et al. (US 2017/0163685 A1) in view of Moshenberg et al. (US 2016/0261488 A1) further in view of Chanda et al. (US 2018/0007005 A1) and further in view of Raleigh et al. (US 2022/0014512 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 21, Schwartz discloses
defining traffic policy rules for a service profile, wherein the service profile is service behavior definition based on communications network subscription ([0075], “A rule table 708 provides a series of (traffic policy) rules associated with each security (service) profile 724”, [0060], “a subscription profile repository (SPR)”, “The SPR 314 contains subscriber and subscription information, typically stored on a per-PDN basis, and would include information such as the subscriber's allowed services, information on the subscriber's allowed QoS, the subscriber's charging related information, and a subscriber category”);
associating each of the one or more devices with at least one of the range of network assigned unique identifiers assigned to the service profile using communication network subscription identifier ([0047], “IP address allocations based on Internet Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI)”, [0065], “assigning IP addresses to (each) mobile devices”, [0075], “A rule table 708 provides a series of (traffic policy) rules associated with each security (service) profile 724”);
Schwartz does not explicitly teach but Moshenberg teaches
assigning a range of network assigned unique identifiers to the service profile ([0037], “The cellular network can allocate IP addresses to devices that want to use its services. A range of IP addresses can be allocated to (the service profile of) a specific enterprise”, “When a device, which belongs to that specific enterprise, requests a service, the device can receive an IP address from a selected range”);
Schwartz and Moshenberg are analogous art as they are in the same field of endeavor of information security. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Moshenberg with the disclosure of Schwartz. The motivation/suggestion would have been to increase security because the firewall, at the virtual internet gateway (VIG), can know to only allow IP streams with IP addresses from the specific range (Moshenberg, [0037]).
The combined teaching of Schwartz and Moshenberg does not explicitly teach but Chanda teaches
enforcing the defined traffic policy rules at packet level on the network traffic to and from the each of the one or more devices based on the network assigned unique identifier associated to the each of the one or more devices ([0005], “The security rule also includes an action that should be taken if the network traffic (e.g., a data packet) matches the rule (i.e., the identification data of the packet matches the identification data stored in the rule)”, [0031], “generating a set of access control list (ACL) rules based on the security policy's definition and configuring the MHFE (e.g., a top of rack switch, a physical router, etc.) to apply the ACL rules on the network traffic that is forwarded to and/or from the (each of) physical machines”, [0035], “network layer's addresses of the (each of) physical machine (e.g., IP and MAC addresses of the machine)”),
Schwartz, Moshenberg and Chanda are analogous art as they are in the same field of endeavor of information security. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chanda with the combined teaching of Schwartz and Moshenberg. The motivation/suggestion would have been to implement a security policy associated with a logical router of a logical network (Chanda, Abstract).
The combined teaching of Schwartz, Moshenberg and Chanda does not explicitly teach but Raleigh teaches
wherein the traffic policy rules define security profile for each of the one or more devices as a set of rules for individual communications network subscriptions of the one or more devices ([0082], “this association of a traffic control policy set with a network service usage activity can be determined using a mapping engine that is stored, e.g., on the device and used by the service processor”, [0105], “the rules engine can apply a rule or a set of rules based on the identified (subscription) service associated with the device”, [0138], “the policy management server 1652 manages policy settings on the device (e.g., various policy settings as described herein with respect to various embodiments) in accordance with a device service profile”, [0161-0163], “mapping a service plan or a set of service plan policies/rules 510 to a set of network service usage activity rules 530”, “the activity map is based on a service plan, service profile, and/or service policy settings associated with the communications device”, [0317], “information or content subscription services”, [0346], “Userid for a subscriber might be considered secure from a network perspective. In a specific embodiment, a device ID can also be used to determine policy”),
Schwartz, Moshenberg, Chanda and Raleigh are analogous art as they are in the same field of endeavor of information security. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Raleigh with the combined teaching of Schwartz, Moshenberg and Chanda. The motivation/suggestion would have been for ensuring that network services are available based upon one or more of appropriate traffic control (Raleigh, Abstract).
Regarding Claims 2, 12 and 22, the combined teaching of Schwartz, Moshenberg, Chanda and Raleigh teaches
wherein the communications network comprises a cellular network, communications network subscription comprises a cellular subscription and communication network subscription identifier comprises any of International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI), MAC identifier and International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) for the each of the one or more devices (Schwartz, [0098], “different cellular networks”, [0060], “subscription information”, [0074], “the devices corresponding IMSI”).
Regarding Claims 3, 13 and 23, the combined teaching of Schwartz, Moshenberg, Chanda and Raleigh teaches
wherein the traffic policy rules are defined as a set of rules for one or more groups of subscriptions that define device behavior (Raleigh, [0096], “(one or more groups of) subscriber management of services for the devices”, [0105], “the rules engine can apply a rule or a set of rules based on the identified (subscription) service associated with the device”).
Regarding Claims 4, 14 and 24, the combined teaching of Schwartz, Moshenberg, Chanda and Raleigh teaches
wherein the network assigned unique identifier comprises an internet protocol (IP) address and wherein the IP address is a static IP address or a dynamic IP address (Moshenberg, [0037], “A range of IP addresses”, [0051], “the dynamic Internet protocol address”).
Regarding Claims 5, 15 and 25, the combined teaching of Schwartz, Moshenberg, Chanda and Raleigh teaches
wherein a range of internet protocol (IP) addresses may be contiguous or non-contiguous (Moshenberg, [0054], “a range of available Internet protocol addresses” which “may be” contiguous or non-contiguous).
Regarding Claims 6, 16 and 26, the combined teaching of Schwartz, Moshenberg, Chanda and Raleigh teaches
assigning a range of internet protocol (IP) addresses to one or more access point names (APNs) (Moshenberg, [0037], “credentials including, but not limited to, a user identification and/or a service selector, can be sent to the wireless provider's mobility network as an access point name (APN). The service-selector can communicate to the mobility network to select the range of the IP addresses to be allocated”).
Regarding Claims 7, 17 and 27, the combined teaching of Schwartz, Moshenberg, Chanda and Raleigh teaches
assigning the one or more access point names (APNs) to one or more service profiles (Moshenberg, [0037], “credentials including, but not limited to, a user identification and/or a service selector (as service profile), can be sent to the wireless provider's mobility network as an access point name (APN)).
Regarding Claims 8, 18 and 28, the combined teaching of Schwartz, Moshenberg, Chanda and Raleigh teaches
wherein defining policy rules for the service profile includes any one or more of: allowing one or more destination IP addresses for a source IP address, denying one or more destination IP addresses for a source IP address, logging traffic to and from the source IP address, redirecting traffic to one or more different destination IP addresses for a source IP address, allowing access to a defined set of IP addresses for a source IP address, forbidding traffic from one customer's devices from reaching another customer's devices, quality of service (QoS), delay control, throttle, prioritizing of traffic based on protocol, prioritizing of traffic based on destination and application specific packet rewrite (Schwartz, [0084], “a Policy and Charging Execution Function (PCEF) performs enforcement on this data packet. This PCEF enforcement includes enforcement of policy decisions such as Quality of Service (QoS)”).
Regarding Claims 9, 19 and 29, the combined teaching of Schwartz, Moshenberg, Chanda and Raleigh teaches
wherein the policy rules defined for a service profile are specific to a region, a network or a combination thereof (Schwartz, [0031], “a routing system within a (specific) mobile network is provided that allows an individual or an organization to define routing and/or security policies for one or more mobile devices”).
Regarding Claims 10, 20 and 30, the combined teaching of Schwartz, Moshenberg, Chanda and Raleigh teaches
wherein at least one of the source IP address and the destination IP address comprises an IP address associated with the each of the one or more devices (Schwartz, [0065], “assigning IP addresses to mobile devices”, [0090], “packet is sent to the user device corresponding to the IP address”).
Regarding Claim 11, Schwartz discloses A system for defining and enforcing traffic policy one or more devices enabled for connectivity over a communications network comprises one or more devices enabled for connectivity ([0032], “The system 100 includes one or more mobile devices 102A-102D”), a core network comprising at least one processor ([0111], “performed, at least partially, by one or more processors”), a traffic control function (TCF) ([0067] and [0082-0086]) and a device provisioning service (DPS) ([0060], [0075]),
wherein the device provisioning service (DPS) associates one or more devices to a service profile, and defines traffic policy rules for the service profile ([0075], “A rule table 708 provides a series of (traffic policy) rules associated with each security (service) profile 724”, [0060], “a subscription profile repository (SPR)”, “The SPR 314 contains subscriber and subscription information, typically stored on a per-PDN basis, and would include information such as the subscriber's allowed services, information on the subscriber's allowed QoS, the subscriber's charging related information, and a subscriber category”);
associates each of the one or more devices with at least one of the range of network assigned unique identifiers assigned to the service profile using communication network subscription identifier for the each of the one or more devices ([0047], “IP address allocations based on Internet Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI)”, [0075], “assigning IP addresses to mobile devices”, “A rule table 708 provides a series of (traffic policy) rules associated with each security (service) profile 724”);
Schwartz does not explicitly teach but Moshenberg teaches
wherein the core network is configured to provide a network assigned unique identifier management service (NAUIMS), the network assigned unique identifier management service (NAUIMS) assigns a range of network assigned unique identifiers to the service profile ([0037], “The cellular network can allocate IP addresses to devices that want to use its services. A range of IP addresses can be allocated to (the service profile of) a specific enterprise”);
Schwartz and Moshenberg are analogous art as they are in the same field of endeavor of information security. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Moshenberg with the disclosure of Schwartz. The motivation/suggestion would have been to increase security because the firewall, at the virtual internet gateway (VIG), can know to only allow IP streams with IP addresses from the specific range (Moshenberg, [0037]).
The combined teaching of Schwartz and Moshenberg does not explicitly teach but Chanda teaches
wherein the traffic control function (TCF) enforces the defined traffic policy rules at a packet level on the network traffic to and from the each of the one or more devices based on the network assigned unique identifier assigned to the each of the one or more devices ([0005], “The security rule also includes an action that should be taken if the network traffic (e.g., a data packet) matches the rule (i.e., the identification data of the packet matches the identification data stored in the rule)”, [0031], “generating a set of access control list (ACL) rules based on the security policy's definition and configuring the MHFE (e.g., a top of rack switch, a physical router, etc.) to apply the ACL rules on the network traffic that is forwarded to and/or from the physical machines”, [0035], “network layer's addresses of the physical machine (e.g., IP and MAC addresses of the machine)”),
Schwartz, Moshenberg and Chanda are analogous art as they are in the same field of endeavor of information security. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chanda with the combined teaching of Schwartz and Moshenberg. The motivation/suggestion would have been to implement a security policy associated with a logical router of a logical network (Chanda, Abstract).
The combined teaching of Schwartz, Moshenberg and Chanda does not explicitly teach but Raleigh teaches
wherein the traffic policy rules define security profile for each of the one or more devices as a set of rules for individual communications network subscriptions of the one or more devices ([0082], “this association of a traffic control policy set with a network service usage activity can be determined using a mapping engine that is stored, e.g., on the device and used by the service processor”, [0105], “the rules engine can apply a rule or a set of rules based on the identified (subscription) service associated with the device”, [0138], “the policy management server 1652 manages policy settings on the device (e.g., various policy settings as described herein with respect to various embodiments) in accordance with a device service profile”, [0161-0163], “mapping a service plan or a set of service plan policies/rules 510 to a set of network service usage activity rules 530”, “the activity map is based on a service plan, service profile, and/or service policy settings associated with the communications device”, [0317], “information or content subscription services”, [0346], “Userid for a subscriber might be considered secure from a network perspective. In a specific embodiment, a device ID can also be used to determine policy”),
Schwartz, Moshenberg, Chanda and Raleigh are analogous art as they are in the same field of endeavor of information security. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Raleigh with the combined teaching of Schwartz, Moshenberg and Chanda. The motivation/suggestion would have been for ensuring that network services are available based upon one or more of appropriate traffic control (Raleigh, Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG-FENG HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am - 5 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, Eleni A Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-3867. 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.
/CHENG-FENG HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497