DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Arguments /Remarks filed on 08/27/2026.
In the instant Amendment, claims 9-20 were cancelled; and claims 1, 21 and 29 are independent claims. Claims 1-8 and 21-29 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL.
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 Arguments
Applicants’ arguments in the instant Amendment, filed on 08/27/2026, with respect to limitations listed below, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments: "validating an authentication token that is incorporated into the IPv6 destination address, wherein the authentication token represents a plurality of hexadecimal digits of the IPv6 destination address."
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicants. The Examiner respectfully submits
that McPherson does disclose: ‘validating an authentication token that is incorporated into the IPv6 destination address, wherein the authentication token represents a plurality of hexadecimal digits of the IPv6 destination address’ (Pascal: see the attached translated pdf on page 14, it states: “It is recommended that this string use Base64 or hexadecimal characters. This parameter is used in the calculation of the response by the second gateway 140B at the origin of the remote access request. In response, the second gateway 140B sends a response message 430 with the Authorization header containing the name (for example Digest) of the algorithms applied on the authentication token C by each of the mobile devices 310A, 320A in order to carry out the signature of the token (as explained below in connection with FIG. 9) and followed by a response parameter, which contains hexadecimal digits representing the different results of the token signatures (or concatenation of results) proving that the mobile devices 310A and / or 320A are present on the second home network 100-B and has (have) a right of access to the first home network 100-A. “ ).
Examiner, however, in light of the above submission maintains the previous rejections while considering the claims as follows:
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, 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.
Claims 1-8 and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McPherson et al., (hereinafter McPherson), Pub. No.: US 2013/0085914 in view of Pascal et al. (hereinafter Pascal), FR 2913841 (see the attached translate PDF).
Referring to claim 1, McPherson teaches a method comprising:
receiving a resource request at a server associated with an IPv6 destination address included in the resource request (para. 0034-0038 and fig. 1, receiving a DNS request);
using at least the authentication token to determine policy for the resource request (paras. 0032, 0036, and fig. 1; authentication DNS server 120 may interface with a security policy engine);
using at least the IPv6 destination address to provide an individualized response in accordance with the policy for the resource request (paras. 0043-0045, 0049, 0061-0062 and figs. 1-2; Each DNS response may be individualized based on the user accessing the resource).
McPherson does not explicitly disclose validating an authentication token that is incorporated into the IPv6 destination address, wherein the authentication token represents a plurality of hexadecimal digits of the IPv6 destination address.
However, in an analogous art, Pascal discloses validating an authentication token that is incorporated into the IPv6 destination address, wherein the authentication token represents a plurality of hexadecimal digits of the IPv6 destination address (Pascal: see the attached translated pdf on page 14, it states: “It is recommended that this string use Base64 or hexadecimal characters. This parameter is used in the calculation of the response by the second gateway 140B at the origin of the remote access request. In response, the second gateway 140B sends a response message 430 with the Authorization header containing the name (for example Digest) of the algorithms applied on the authentication token C by each of the mobile devices 310A, 320A in order to carry out the signature of the token (as explained below in connection with FIG. 9) and followed by a response parameter, which contains hexadecimal digits representing the different results of the token signatures (or concatenation of results) proving that the mobile devices 310A and / or 320A are present on the second home network 100-B and has (have) a right of access to the first home network 100-A. “ ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to combine the teachings of McPherson with the method and system of Pascal, wherein validating an authentication token that is incorporated into the IPv6 destination address, wherein the authentication token represents a plurality of hexadecimal digits of the IPv6 destination address to provide users with a means for receiving determined message from a communication network (100-B), where the message represents authentication information. An access account is created for accessing the resources. The account is associated to right global access levels that providing global access to the resources. The right global access levels are obtained from an assembly and right access level associated to the authentication information. Independent claims are also included for the following: (1) a computer program comprises the instructions for implementing the resources remotely accessing method (2) a storing unit stores the code for instructions (Pascal: abstract).
Referring to claim 2, McPherson and Pascal teach the method of claim 1, McPherson further teaches comprising: receiving authentication information at an authentication server from a client, wherein the client is identifiable, at least in part, from a source address; using the source address for impersonation attack prevention (McPherson: paras. 0038-0040, 0045-0049, 0065).
Referring to claim 3, McPherson and Pascal teach the method of claim 1, McPherson further teaches wherein a client sends authentication information to an authentication server to obtain the IPv6 destination address with the authentication token incorporated therein (McPherson: paras. 0038, 0043).
Referring to claim 4, McPherson and Pascal teach the method of claim 1, Pascal further teaches wherein the authentication token is pseudo-randomly generated at an authentication server (Pascal: see the attached page. 14 of the translated PDF).
Referring to claim 5, McPherson and Pascal teach the method of claim 1, Pascal further teaches wherein the authentication token takes up no more than the last 64 bits of the IPv6 address (Pascal: see the attached page. 14 of the translated PDF).
Referring to claim 6, McPherson and Pascal teach the method of claim 1, Pascal further teaches comprising extracting the authentication token from the IPv6 destination address (Pascal: see the attached page. 14 of the translated PDF).
Referring to claim 7, McPherson and Pascal teach the method of claim 1, McPherson further teaches wherein the authentication token is validated by matching the authentication token to a list of assigned authentication tokens at an authentication server (McPherson: 0035, 0061-0064).
Referring to claim 8, McPherson and Pascal teach the method of claim 1, McPherson further teaches comprising monitoring for suspicious attempts to request services, wherein suspicious attempts to request service are selected from a group consisting of repeated requests to invalid destination addresses, requests to expired destination addresses, requests to destination addresses from another network not otherwise identified with an existing authentication token, and a combination of these (McPherson: paras. 0045-0049 and figs. 3-6).
Referring to claim 21, This claim is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 22, This claim is similar in scope to claim 2 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 23, This claim is similar in scope to claim 3 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 24, This claim is similar in scope to claim 4 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 25, This claim is similar in scope to claim 5 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 26, This claim is similar in scope to claim 6 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 27, This claim is similar in scope to claim 7 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 28, This claim is similar in scope to claim 8 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 29, This claim is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for replying 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 YONAS A BAYOU whose telephone number is (571)272-7610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM.
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, Philip Chea can be reached at 571-272-3951. 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.
/YONAS A BAYOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499 09/24/2026
