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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11, 13-15, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alex et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2013/0097329 A1 (hereinafter Alex).
As per claims 1, 11, 20, Alex discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving a request for dynamic naming service (DNS) resolution from a client (see DNS server receiving a DNS query request for IP address on page 5 section [0041] and Figure 3);
in response to receiving the request, creating a network address translation (NAT) entry and applying the NAT entry to a NAT endpoint (see creating a NAT binding entry in the address translation table on page 5 section [0046] and Figure 4);
in response to creating the NAT entry, sending a NAT internet protocol (IP) address of the NAT endpoint to the client, wherein the NAT IP address has a predefined time to live (TTL) (see returning IP address to requester on page 5 section [0046] and see NAT binding entry associated with a time to live expiration value on page 6 section [0047]); and
in response to the TTL expiring, deleting the NAT entry (see TTL set to remove NAT binding entry after a set duration on page 6 section [0047]).
As per claims 3, 13, Alex discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, comprising receiving from the NAT endpoint an indication of status of a NAT session between the client and a server accessed via the NAT endpoint (see determining status of the UE 134 client to initiate communication on page 4-5 section [0039] ); and altering the NAT session based on the status (see determining the NAT binding session status is not used and can be removed on page 6 section [0047]).
As per claims 4, 14, Alex discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the TTL is extended in response to the status indicating ongoing traffic between the client and the server (see NAT binding entry is kept on the address translation table if used within the expiration timer on page 6 section [0047]).
As per claims 5, 15, Alex discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the NAT entry is deleted in response to the status indicating termination of a connection from the client (see monitoring and termination of client session based on session subsystems on page 9 section [0073]).
As per claims 8, 18, Alex discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, comprising creating a second NAT entry; applying the second NAT entry to a second NAT endpoint; and establishing a tunnel between the two NAT endpoints (see creating VPN tunnelling between subscribing devices on page 9 section [0072-0073]).
As per claim 9, Alex discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein a single policy engine sets both NAT entries (see PGW acts as the policy and charging enforcement function for the client on page 4 section [0031]).
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 2, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alex et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2013/0097329 A1 (hereinafter Alex), and further in view of Stevens et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0105524 A1 (hereinafter Stevens).
As per claims 2, 12, Alex no not disclose expressly: comprising receiving a second request from the client for the DNS resolution; and in response to receiving the second request, extending the TTL.
Stevens teaches: comprising receiving a second request from the client for the DNS resolution (see receiving address request message for extend the address lease on page 22 section [0222]); and in response to receiving the second request, extending the TTL (see using address lease request to extend the current TTL of the address on page 22 section [0222]).
Alex and Stevens are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, NAT address management systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a request message to extend the duration of TTL. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the client to continue using the address via request (see page 22 section [0222] in Stevens). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Alex and Stevens for the benefit of second request to extend the TTL to obtain the invention as specified in claims 2, 12.
Claims 6, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alex et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2013/0097329 A1 (hereinafter Alex), and further in view of Goyal et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0070183 A1 (hereinafter Goyal).
As per claims 6, 16, Alex no not disclose expressly: determining whether the client is authorized to connect to a destination specified in the DNS resolution request based on certificate information for the client.
Goyal teaches: determining whether the client is authorized to connect to a destination specified in the DNS resolution request based on certificate information for the client (see authentication via client certificate on page 8 section [0063]).
Alex and Goyal are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, NAT address management systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to authenticate client using certificate information. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide secure client authentication (see page 8 section [0063] in Goyal). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Alex and Goyal for the benefit of client authorization via certificate information to obtain the invention as specified in claims 6, 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 10, 17, 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Poyhonen et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0201370 A1. Register message to create NAT transformation table entry (see section [0081]).
Winn et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0286431 A1. DNS resolver for IP address (see Abstract) with TTL removal (see section [0020], [0052]).
Vandenbussche et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0370425 A1. TTL expiration (see section [0059]).
Roy et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0278955 A1. DNS query for IP address (see Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN S CHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 EST.
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, Chris L Parry can be reached on (571)272-8328. 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.
/ALAN S CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights