DETAILED ACTION
In a response received on 6 April 2026, the applicants amended claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20, canceled claims 2, 3, 13, and 18, and added claim 21.
Claims 1, 4-12, 14-17 and 19-21 are pending.
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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 12, and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner suggests amending to incorporate language pertaining to determining the type of authentication request is a re-authentication request by determining that the client device is already connected to the network based on connection state maintained and monitored by the NAS device (see applicant published disclosure ¶0067) because the cited prior art does not explicitly disclose or suggest the NAS device monitoring and maintaining the connection state of client devices.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 15 objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 14 and 15 were amended to depend from claim 1 even though the claims appear to reference the system of claim 12. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 9, 12, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi (US 2008/0031496 A1) in view of Bolotin et al. (US 2015/0163324 A1) and Kommula (US 2010/0153558 A1), and further in view of Rebo et al. (US 2004/0098586).
With respect to claim 1, Takagi discloses: a network access server (NAS) device (i.e., a load balancing apparatus evaluating a load corresponding to an authenticating device in Takagi, ¶0064)
comprising: a memory; and one or more processors in communication with the memory (i.e., load balancing device with respective units for control, storage, and communication in Takagi, ¶0053)
that includes a local NAC system in communication with the NAS device (i.e., load balancing servers to deliver on minimum response time suggests a local (low latency) node; includes network elements on an intranet in Takagi, ¶0005, ¶0041),
send the authentication request to the selected NAC system. (i.e., instructing the selected authenticating device to perform the authentication in Takagi, ¶0050).
Takagi discloses load balancing requests to servers to deliver on minimum response time suggests a local (low latency) node; and monitoring and recording a load for the authenticating device such as CPU occupancy (¶0005, ¶0046). Takagi do(es) not explicitly disclose latency of the servers. Bolotin, in order to improve quality of service for clients by evaluating client latency sensitivity (¶0076), discloses:
determine latency (i.e., collect resource metrics on system latency in Bolotin, ¶0072)
and a load (i.e., queue metrics in Bolotin, ¶0060)
at each network access control (NAC) system of a set of geographically distributed NAC systems (i.e., plurality of queues; collect queue metrics to compute overall system specific metrics in Bolotin, ¶0066)
Based on Takagi in view of Bolotin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Bolotin to improve upon those of Takagi in order to improve quality of service for clients by evaluating client latency sensitivity.
Takagi discloses prioritizing authenticating device with highest performance property and lightest load corresponding to the weight/load evaluated for the request (¶0065-0068, and fig. 7). Takagi and Bolotin do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Kommula, in order to improve robustness of serving clients by evaluating geographic location, capacity, and latency of servers (¶0007), discloses:
wherein the local NAC system comprises one of the set of geographically distributed NAC systems that is within a same geographical region as the NAS device (i.e., determining geographical region of server from a list of multiple sites based on IP address corresponding to regional registry; preferring IP address in same geographical region as client machine; latency can be measured for the local and geographically distant servers; load on the server includes a threshold number of TCP sessions in capacity in Kommula, ¶0094, ¶0095, ¶0096),
based on a determination that the load at the local NAC system is above a threshold and that the type of authentication request is the re-authentication request corresponding to the higher latency tolerance, select another NAC system of the set of geographically distributed NAC systems that has a higher latency than the local NAC system (i.e., selecting among distributed sites using load metrics, capacity thresholds, RTT/proximity, and geography; an overloaded local site can be disqualified so a remaining remote/higher-latency candidate is selected in Kommula, ¶0009; ¶0094),
wherein the selected NAC system comprises one of the set of geographically distributed NAC systems that is located within a different geographical region than the NAS device (i.e., suggests local IP address may be beyond max capacity resulting in selected IP is based on latency capacity and latency checks supersede geography checks; geography proximity is only preferred when capacity is normal and latency ties two or more servers in Kommula, ¶0094, ¶0095, ¶0096).
Based on Takagi in view of Bolotin, and further in view of Kommula, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Kommula to improve upon those of Takagi in order to improve robustness of serving clients by evaluating geographic location, capacity, and latency of servers.
Takagi discloses prioritizing authenticating device with highest performance property and lightest load corresponding to the weight/load evaluated for the request (¶0065-0068, and fig. 7). Takagi, Bolotin, and Kommula do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Rebo, in order to reduces infrastructure load and efficiency by differentiating authentication and reauthentication (¶0008-0009), discloses: and configured to:
based on receipt of an authentication request from a client device and whether the client device is already connected to a network, determine a type of authentication request, wherein an initial authentication request corresponds to a lower latency tolerance, and wherein a re-authentication request corresponds to a higher latency tolerance (i.e., upon client roam, checking whether the new AP has knowledge of the client’s current AAA session and either presenting reassociation/reauthentication or requiring EAP authentication in Rebo, ¶0023-0024).
Based on Takagi in view of Bolotin and Kommula, and further in view of Rebo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Rebo to improve upon those of Takagi in order to reduces infrastructure load and efficiency by differentiating authentication and reauthentication.
With respect to claim 4, Takagi discloses: the NAS device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to, based on determining that the type of authentication request is the initial authentication request corresponding to the low latency tolerance, select another NAC system that has a lowest latency in the set of geographically distributed NAC systems that includes the local NAC system (i.e., evaluating loads and comparing them to weights of the corresponding authenticating device, with level 10 needing to be processed with highest priority and device which has the highest performance and lightest load in Takagi, ¶0048-0049)
With respect to claim 8, Takagi discloses: the NAS device of claim 1, wherein to determine the load at the local NAC system (i.e., authenticating device within a network of the load balancing apparatus in Takagi, ¶0040), the one or more processors are configured to:
obtain a load indication from the local NAC system (i.e., monitoring and storing a load of the authenticating device in Takagi, ¶0046); and
determine that the load at the local NAC system is above the threshold. (i.e., in Takagi, ¶0048-0049).
With respect to claim 9, Takagi discloses: the NAS device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors (i.e., authenticating device within a network of the load balancing apparatus in Takagi, ¶0040) are configured to: obtain a status indication from the local NAC system (i.e., determining and storing a load on the authenticating device in Takagi, ¶0046, ¶0049); and
determine that the local NAC system is available to receive authentication requests (i.e., evaluate suitability to receive requests based on corresponding weight and CPU occupancy rate, the highest rates effectively indicating unavailable to serve requests in Takagi, ¶0048-0049, ¶0082).
With respect to claim 12, the limitation(s) of claim 12 are similar to those of claim(s) 1. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 1.
With respect to claim 14, the limitation(s) of claim 14 are similar to those of claim(s) 4. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 4.
With respect to claim 17, the limitation(s) of claim 17 are similar to those of claim(s) 1. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 1.
With respect to claim 19, the limitation(s) of claim 19 are similar to those of claim(s) 4. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 4.
Claim(s) 5-7, 15, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi (US 2008/0031496 A1) in view of Bolotin et al. (US 2015/0163324 A1), Kommula (US 2010/0153558 A1) and Rebo et al. (US 2004/0098586), and further in view of Halasz et al. (US 2004/0168054 A1).
With respect to claim 5, Takagi discloses selecting a destination authenticating device based on load and evaluating the request weight and matching it with a corresponding destination authenticating device (¶0049, ¶0070). Takagi, Bolotin, Kommula, and Rebo do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Halasz, in order to improve latency for authentication by reducing load on the AAA server (¶0022), discloses: the NAS device of claim 1, wherein to determine the latency corresponding to the type of authentication request, the one or more processors are configured to,
based on determining that the initial authentication request comprises the initial authentication request type is (i.e., initial authentication request is determined as absence of credentials in Halasz, ¶0026),
determine whether the initial authentication request comprises a single transaction authentication or a multi-transaction authentication (i.e., lack of dynamic credentials indicate full authentication which is multi-transaction in Halasz, ¶0034),
wherein the single transaction authentication corresponds to a higher latency tolerance (i.e., determining that reauthentication requests use lightweight protocol compared to initial in Halasz, ¶0022), and
wherein the multi-transaction authentication corresponds to a lower latency tolerance (i.e., initial request is multiple two communications with the server in Halasz, ¶0026).
Based on Takagi in view of Bolotin, Kommula and Rebo, and further in view of Halasz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Halasz to improve upon those of Takagi in order to improve latency for authentication by reducing load on the AAA server.
With respect to claim 6, Takagi discloses: the NAS device of claim 5, wherein to select the NAC system for the authentication request, the one or more processors are configured to, based on determining that the authentication request comprises the single transaction authentication corresponding to the higher latency tolerance, select the NAC system that has a higher latency than one or more of the other NAC systems in the set of geographically distributed NAC systems that includes the local NAC (i.e., evaluating the parameters of the request including biometric data quality and implied load on the system to select the appropriate authenticating device to match the priority of the request, lower priority requests are routed to resource starved or less performant device in Takagi, ¶0048-0049, ¶0082).
With respect to claim 7, Takagi discloses: the NAS device of claim 5, wherein the one or more processors are configured to, based on determining that the initial authentication request comprises the multi-transaction authentication corresponding to the lower latency tolerance, select another NAC system that has a lowest latency in the set of geographically distributed NAC systems that includes the local NAC system (i.e., evaluating the parameters of the request including biometric data quality and implied load on the system to select the appropriate authenticating device to match the priority of the request, higher priority request with the performant system, the relationship between request impact and system performance suggests system with least load for more intense requests in Takagi, ¶0048-0049, ¶0082).
With respect to claim 15, the limitation(s) of claim 15 are similar to those of claim(s) 5. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 5.
With respect to claim 20, the limitation(s) of claim 20 are similar to those of claim(s) 5. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 5.
With respect to claim 21, Takagi discloses selecting a destination authenticating device based on load and evaluating the request weight and matching it with a corresponding destination authenticating device (¶0049, ¶0070). Takagi, Bolotin, Kommula, and Rebo do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Halasz, in order to improve latency for authentication by reducing load on the AAA server (¶0022), discloses: the NAS device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to, based on the client device already being connected to the network (i.e., HLSZ discloses re-authentication when the client has already authenticated and/or dynamic credentials already exist for the client in Halasz, ¶0027; ¶0032),
determine that the type of the authentication request is the re-authentication request (i.e., HLSZ discloses that if dynamic credentials exist for the client, the client is re-authenticated. in Halasz, ¶0033).
Based on Takagi in view of Bolotin, Kommula, and Rebo, and further in view of Halasz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Halasz to improve upon those of Takagi in order to improve latency for authentication by reducing load on the AAA server.
Claim(s) 10, 11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi (US 2008/0031496 A1) in view of Bolotin et al. (US 2015/0163324 A1), Kommula (US 2010/0153558 A1) and Rebo et al. (US 2004/0098586), and further in view of Bernat et al. (US 2018/0241802 A1).
With respect to claim 10, Takagi discloses: the NAS device of claim 1, wherein to determine the latency and the load at each NAC system, the one or more processors are configured to:
send, to each NAC system in the set of geographically distributed NAC systems, a probe message (i.e., communicating with the authenticating device to retrieve occupancy load information of the device in Takagi, ¶0054,¶0057, ¶0060)
and a load indication for the NAC system (i.e., renewing the load information by communicating with the storage corresponding to the load balancing device to keep load information relevant in Takagi, ¶0054,¶0057, ¶0060).
Takagi discloses evaluating a load corresponding to an authentication request corresponding to the processing load for performing the authentication; determining a capability of the authenticating device to authenticate the request according to its resources such as CPU occupancy (¶0045, ¶0047). Takagi, Bolotin, Kommula, and Rebo do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Bernat, in order to improve access to low-latency resources to assign workloads to in a global view (¶0002), discloses: based on the probe message, obtain, from each NAC system in the set of NAC systems, a message including a status indication (i.e., server nodes send update message with an identifier indicating to the network switch operation status corresponding to a timestamp in Bernat, ¶0054).
Based on Takagi in view of Bolotin, Kommula, and Rebo, and further in view of Bernat, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Bernat to improve upon those of Takagi in order to improve access to low-latency resources to assign workloads to in a global view.
With respect to claim 11, Takagi discloses: the NAS device of claim 10, wherein the message comprises one or more vendor-specific attributes based on a vendor of the NAS device (i.e., application program information includes program ID and corresponding parameters corresponding to the application on that authenticating device in Takagi, ¶0063).
With respect to claim 16, the limitation(s) of claim 16 are similar to those of claim(s) 10. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 10.
With respect to claim 16, Takagi discloses: the system of claim 12, wherein the message comprises one or more vendor-specific attributes based on a vendor of the NAS device. (i.e., application program information includes program ID and corresponding parameters corresponding to the application on that authenticating device in Takagi, ¶0063).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sullivan et al. (US 2012/0281534 Al) discloses tracking and managing user data sessions and routing authentication requests; gauging authentication server response time and offloading requests from burdened authentication server paths (¶0025, ¶0027, ¶0029, ¶0041).
Sullivan does not explicitly disclose identifying the request as a re-authentication request based on monitored connection state being already connected.
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 SHERMAN L LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Joon Hwang can be reached on 571-272-4036. 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.
Sherman Lin
7/10/2026
/S. L./Examiner, Art Unit 2447
/JOON H HWANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights