DETAILED ACTION
The amendment to Application Ser. No. 18/083,762 filed on March 16, 2026, has been entered. Claims 2, 9, 16 and 24 are cancelled. Claims 1, 8, 10-15, and 23 are currently amended. New Claim 25 is added. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-23 and 25 are pending and are examined.
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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated March 13, 2026, is acknowledged by the Examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending (see attached PTO-1449).
Response to Arguments
The amendment to Claims 1, 8 and 15 has overcome the rejection of Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed January 12, 2026. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, necessitated by the amendment, are set forth in this Office Action.
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, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17 and 19-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bichot et al., Pub. No. US 2018/0183686 A1, hereby “Bichot”, in view of Chambers et al., Pub. No. US 2014/0068030 A1, hereby “Chambers”, and in further view of Judge et al., Pub. No. US 2016/0308875 A1, hereby “Judge”.
Regarding Claim 1, Bichot discloses “A method (Bichot paragraphs 3 and 29: a method for troubleshooting a home network) comprising:
receiving, by a virtual gateway via a tunnel from a router that forwards traffic from a client device to the virtual gateway, an encapsulated dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP) request message (Bichot figs. 2 and 6 and paragraphs 13-20 and 53-55: traffic from broadband residential gateway BRG2, e.g., a DHCP request, is received by virtual gateway S through dedicated tunnel TU2, e.g., a GRE tunnel)”.
However, while Bichot discloses that the virtual gateway provides DHCP and DNS services to devices connected to the home LAN (Bichot fig. 2 and paragraphs 14 and 20), Bichot does not explicitly disclose “extracting, by the virtual gateway, device information from the encapsulated DHCP request message indicating a connection between the client device and the router, wherein the device information is associated with the client device;
determining, based on the extracted device information, a first probability of an identity of the client device;
determining, based on the identity of the client device, a domain name system (DNS) policy associated with the client device;
receiving, from the client device, user credentials of a user associated with the client device and a request to bypass the DNS policy; and
permitting, based on authenticating the user credentials, the client device to bypass the DNS policy.”
In a related field of endeavor, Chambers discloses “extracting... device information from the... DHCP request message indicating a connection between the client device and the router, wherein the device information is associated with the client device (Chambers figs. 1 and 6 and paragraphs 23-24, 51-52 and 77: network access device 102 determines device information associated with client device 108, e.g., IP address, from DHCP messages exchanged with client device when it first connects to the network);
determining, based on the extracted device information, a first probability of an identity of the client device (Chambers figs. 1 and 6 and paragraphs 23, 46, 51-52, 56 and 77: network access device 102 determines the likely device type of client device 108, i.e., an identity of the client device, based on the device information – while not explicitly stated, a first probability of an identify of the client device is implied by the “likely” device type)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Bichot to determine the device type of a client device connected to the home network using device information extracted from DHCP messages exchanged with the client device when it connects to the home network as taught by Chambers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine determining the device type of a client device connected to the home network using device information extracted from DHCP messages exchanged with the client device when it connects to the home network to automatically assign an access policy based on the determined device type (Chambers paragraphs 2, 21-23 and 47).
However, while Chambers discloses applying a particular access control policy based on the determined device identity (Chambers paragraph 32), the combination of Bichot and Chambers does not explicitly disclose “determining, based on the identity of the client device, a domain name system (DNS) policy associated with the client device;
receiving, from the client device, user credentials of a user associated with the client device and a request to bypass the DNS policy; and
permitting, based on authenticating the user credentials, the client device to bypass the DNS policy.”
In the same field of endeavor, Judge discloses “determining, based on the identity of the client device, a domain name system (DNS) policy associated with the client device (Judge figs. 1 and 5 and paragraphs 28, 30-32 and 41: security management device 110, i.e., a gateway, obtains a DNS policy from policy database 128 of provider infrastructure 120 based on the device identity);
receiving, from the client device, user credentials of a user associated with the client device and a request to bypass the DNS policy (Judge paragraph 29: “An option may be provided to bypass the blocked page using, e.g., a username and password” – while not explicitly stated, receipt of the username and password, i.e., user credentials, by the security management device is implied); and
permitting, based on authenticating the user credentials, the client device to bypass the DNS policy (Judge paragraph 29: “An option may be provided to bypass the blocked page using, e.g., a username and password” – while not explicitly stated, allowing access to the blocked page in response to authentication of the user based on the username and password is implied).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Bichot, as modified by Chambers, to apply a particular DNS policy to the client device based on the determined identity as taught by Judge. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine applying a particular DNS policy to the client device based on the determined identity to control Internet access on a device-to-device basis (Judge paragraphs 2-3).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Bichot, Chambers and Judge discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Chambers discloses “adding the client device to a local network comprising the router (Chambers fig. 1 and paragraphs 23-24, 29 and 81: network access device 102 communicatively couples client device 108 to LAN 105).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Bichot to determine the device type of a client device connected to the home network using device information extracted from DHCP messages exchanged with the client device when it connects to the home network as taught by Chambers for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Bichot, Chambers and Judge discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Chambers discloses “wherein the device information comprises at least one of an IP address, a device type, a manufacturer, or operating system information (Chambers paragraphs 50-52: device information may include the IP address, the device type, the manufacturer, e.g., Apple, and the operating system, e.g., iOS, of client device 108).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Bichot to determine the device type of a client device connected to the home network using device information extracted from DHCP messages exchanged with the client device when it connects to the home network as taught by Chambers for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Bichot, Chambers and Judge discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Chambers discloses “updating, based on a unique identifier associated with the client device indicating a manufacturer, the identity of the client device to indicate the manufacturer (Chambers paragraphs 47 and 50: network access device 102 sends update information comprising at least the MAC address of client device 108 to management server 101, wherein the device manufacturer is ascertained from a prefix portion of the MAC address).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Bichot to determine the device type of a client device connected to the home network using device information extracted from DHCP messages exchanged with the client device when it connects to the home network as taught by Chambers for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Bichot, Chambers and Judge discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Chambers discloses “extracting, from the DHCP request message, an Internet Protocol address, a device type, a manufacturer, and an operating system version, wherein the device information comprises the Internet Protocol address, the device type, the manufacturer, and the operating system version (Chambers paragraphs 50-52: network access device 102 determines the IP address of client device 108 as well as the device type, manufacturer, e.g., Apple, and OS version, e.g., iOS, from DHCP messages exchanged with client device 108).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Bichot to determine the device type of a client device connected to the home network using device information extracted from DHCP messages exchanged with the client device when it connects to the home network as taught by Chambers for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 8 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Additionally, Bichot discloses “A virtual gateway apparatus (Bichot figs. 2 and 6 and paragraphs 12-17 and 54: physical machines A1, A2 of server infrastructure implementing a virtual gateway S) comprising:
one or more processors Bichot figs. 2 and 6 and paragraphs 12-17 and 54: physical machines A1, A2);
memory storing instructions... (Bichot figs. 2 and 6 and paragraphs 12-17 and 54: physical machines A1, A2)”.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 10 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 3.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 5.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 6.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 14 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 7.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Additionally, Bichot discloses “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions... (Bichot paragraphs 3 and 29 and 36-37: a carrier medium comprising computer-executable instructions for troubleshooting a home network)”.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 3.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 5.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 6.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 21 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Bichot, Chambers and Judge discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Bichot discloses “wherein the encapsulated DHCP request message is encapsulated using Generic Routing Encapsulation (Bichot figs. 2 and 6 and paragraphs 13-20 and 53-55: traffic from broadband residential gateway BRG2, e.g., a DHCP request, is received by virtual gateway S through dedicated tunnel TU2, e.g., a GRE tunnel).”
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 23 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 22.
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Bichot, Chambers and Judge discloses all of the limitations of Claim 8.
Additionally, Bichot discloses “wherein the virtual gateway apparatus is in a cloud network, and wherein the router is in a local network (Bichot figs. 2 and 6 and paragraphs 11-17 and 47: virtual gateway S is in NSP cloud infrastructure while broadband residential gateway BRG2 is in a home LAN).”
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Bichot, Chambers and Judge in view of Keidar et al., Pub. No. US 2017/0238235 A1, hereby “Keidar”.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Bichot, Chambers and Judge discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
However, while Chambers discloses determining the device type of the client device from the device information (Chambers paragraphs 23, 46, 51-52, 56 and 77), the combination of Bichot, Chambers and Judge does not explicitly disclose “sending, to an additional device, a notification comprising one or more possible identities of the client device and a request to validate the identity of the client device; and
receiving, from the additional device, user feedback verifying the identity of the client device.”
In the same field of endeavor, Keidar discloses “sending, to an additional device, a notification comprising one or more possible identities of the client device and a request to validate the identity of the client device (Keidar fig. 1 and paragraphs 18 and 25: the device type of client device 120 determined by router 110 when the client device connects to the network is provided to router management device 140 for presentation to the user); and
receiving, from the additional device, user feedback verifying the identity of the client device (Keidar fig. 1 and paragraphs 18 and 25: the user is asked to confirm the determined device type – while not explicitly stated, receiving confirmation from the user by the router is implied).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Bichot, as modified by Chambers and Judge, to send the prompt for manual resolution to a user device of the administrator as taught by Keidar because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (sending a request to confirm a device type to a device of the user) to known devices and/or methods (a method for automatically applying access control policies based on device types) ready for improvement to yield predictable and desirable results (manual resolution of the device identity by the administrator).
Insofar as they recite similar claim elements, Claims 11 and 18 are rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cruz et al., the paper titled “An Architecture for Virtualized Home Gateways” discloses an architecture for virtualized Residential Gateways (vRGWs) wherein the vRGW is located in or near the provider infrastructure and is in communication with a bridging device at the customer premises over a VLAN; and
Dillon et al., the article titled “Virtualization of Home Network Gateways”, discloses virtualization of the home gateway as a service, wherein the virtual gateway is located in the cloud and is in communication with a bridged residential gateway in the home network via a VLAN.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C MCBETH whose telephone number is (571)270-0495. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00AM - 4:30PM ET.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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.
/WILLIAM C MCBETH/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
/VIVEK SRIVASTAVA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights