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 .
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/02888981 (Numainville) in view of US 2011/0277026 (Agarwal).
With regard to claim 1, Numainville discloses a hacking prevention device, comprising:
a storage configured to store a blacklist; and
a controller configured to,
when a terminal attempts access, identify a destination of the terminal (Numainville: Paragraph [0085] and Figure 7 (with corresponding description in paragraphs [0257] to [0270]). In Numainville, when a sign-on is attempted to a destination from a source device/terminal, the appropriate login interface (image) is provided.),
provide an image to the terminal depending upon the identified destination (Numainville: Paragraph [0085] and Figure 7 (with corresponding description in paragraphs [0257] to [0270])),
accumulate a preset count value, map the accumulated count value to an IP address of the terminal to manage the count value (Numainville: Paragraph [0085] and Figure 7 (with corresponding description in paragraphs [0257] to [0270]). Login failures are tracked, where when a certain source of the failure reaches a threshold number of times, the source can be blocked.),
block the access of the terminal when the accumulated count value exceeds a preset reference value depending upon IDs and passwords that are repeatedly transmitted from the terminal, and update the IP address of the terminal to a blacklist (Numainville: Paragraph [0085] and Figure 7 (with corresponding description in paragraphs [0257] to [0270]). Login failures are tracked, where when a certain source of the failure reaches a threshold number of times, the source can be blocked, with the collection of blocked sources being a “blacklist.”).
Numainville fails to disclose expressly, but Agarwal teaches that the destination of the terminal is a destination port of the terminal (Agarwal: Paragraph [0360]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the destination being a destination port to enable better granularity in how resources are accessed, such that different hosted resources would be able to be associated with different permissions and credentials, thus ensuring that a requesting terminal is given only as much access as is required by the terminal and granted by the destination.
Numainville fails to teach expressly, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches provide an input error image indicating a state in which an ID and a password are input incorrectly when the terminal transmits the ID and the password in response to the image provided to the terminal (More specifically, Numainville does provide the possibility of repeated attempts to login to the system, but does not make mention of an incorrect password interface, where Official Notice is taken that the use of interfaces (images) that indicate an incorrect ID and/or password was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an interface/image indicating an incorrect ID and/or password to provide appropriate feedback to a user, such that a user who legitimately incorrectly enters information is provided information that the login attempt did occur, but failed with a corresponding reason. Without an indication of the issue, a user would potentially have no knowledge that the request to login was event sent, and my attempt the same ID/password combination repeatedly and get locked out of the system without ever knowing that a single login attempt was actually made or why the login attempt did not work.
With regard to claim 2, Numainville in view of Agarwal teaches that the controller identifies the IP address of the terminal attempting the access, determines whether a current state is a state in which the identified IP address of the terminal attempting the access is included in the blacklist preregistered in the storage, and identifies a destination port of the terminal when the current state is a state in which the identified IP address of the terminal attempting the access is not included in the blacklist preregistered in the storage, as a determination result (Numainville: Paragraph [0085] and Figure 7 (with corresponding description in paragraphs [0257] to [0270]) and Agarwal: Paragraph [0360]. With the combination of Numainville and Agarwal, when the address is not in the blacklist, the port would be determined and the login attempt would proceed.).
With regard to claim 3, Numainville in view of Agarwal teaches that, as the determination result, the controller rejects the access of the terminal when the current state is the state in which the identified IP address of the terminal attempting the access is included in the blacklist preregistered in the storage (Numainville: Paragraph [0085] and Figure 7 (with corresponding description in paragraphs [0257] to [0270]). With the combination of Numainville and Agarwal, when the address has failed too many times, access would be blocked.).
With regard to claim 4, Numainville in view of Agarwal teaches, when a current state is a state in which the terminal attempts the access through an external network, the controller automatically registers the IP address of the terminal to the blacklist and updates a security policy (Numainville: Paragraph [0085] and Figure 7 (with corresponding description in paragraphs [0257] to [0270]) and Figure 6. Numainville would update the security policy to at least block the address and possibly perform other actions.).
With regard to claim 5, Numainville in view of Agarwal teaches that, when a current state is a state in which the terminal attempts the access through an internal network, the controller is configured to automatically register the IP address of the terminal to the blacklist and block the access of the IP address of the terminal registered in the blacklist to an internal network and an external network ((Numainville: Paragraph [0085] and Figure 7 (with corresponding description in paragraphs [0257] to [0270]) and Agarwal: Paragraph [0360]. Numainville does not appear to specifically provide a case when a current state is when the terminal attempts access through an internal network (i.e. the terminal is on the same internal network as the resource). As such, the “when” condition is not true with the disclosure of Numainville, thus providing that the rest of the claim does not occur. If Applicant intends for the terminal to attempt the access through an internal network, the instant claim should be amended to reflect this (e.g. providing a specific requirement that the current state is the recited step, and that the functionality is performed based on this or providing a recitation of determining that the current state is a state in which the terminal attempts the access through an internal network, and responsive to the determining, performing the recited function.).
With regard to claim 6, the instant claim is similar to claim 1, and is rejected for similar reasons.
With regard to claim 7, Numainville in view of Agarwal teaches that the image comprises at least one of an input form for inputting an ID and a password, a transmission menu for requesting transmission of the input ID and password, and a warning message for guiding that access is blocked due to suspected hacking when an ID and a password are input to the input form (Numainville: Paragraph [0085] and Figure 7 (with corresponding description in paragraphs [0257] to [0270]). At least an interface to input an ID and password is presented, where only one item on the list is required to teach the instant claim as a whole due to the language “at least one of.”).
With regard to claim 8, Numainville in view of Agarwal teaches the image is a process in which login is not possible when IDs and passwords are repeatedly input (Numainville: Paragraph [0085] and Figure 7 (with corresponding description in paragraphs [0257] to [0270]). The process prevents the repeated entry of IDs and passwords, and renders login impossible when repeated attempts are made.).
With regard to claim 9, Numainville in view of Agarwal teaches wherein the providing of the image to the terminal depending upon the identified destination port comprises any one of: providing the image comprising an input form for inputting an ID and a password as a common line interface (CLI) image corresponding to the destination port of the terminal when the identified destination port is a port for a SSH protocol or a port for a telnet protocol, and a warning message for guiding that access is blocked due to suspected hacking when an ID and a password are input and transmitted to the input form, to the terminal; when the identified destination port is a port for a web browser protocol, providing the image comprising the input form that is a web image corresponding to the destination port of the terminal, a transmission menu for requesting transmission of the input ID and password, and the warning message, to the terminal; when the identified destination port is remote desktop connection, providing the image comprising the input form, the transmission menu, and the warning message, to the terminal; and when the identified destination port is DB connection, providing the image comprising the input form, the transmission menu, and the warning message, to the terminal (Numainville: Paragraph [0099]. The language “any one of” provides that only one option needs to be present to teach the instant claim, as a whole, where Numainville at least teaches the use of a web browser.).
With regard to claim 10, the instant claim is substantially within the scope of claim 4, and is rejected for similar reasons (note that the “security equipment” and “controller” may refer to parts of the same device or could even be the same element lacking any detail that implicitly or explicitly requires a distinction between these parts.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6AM to 2PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
SCOTT B. CHRISTENSEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2444
/SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444