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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1-7, and 9-19 are pending in this application. 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) 1-7, and 9-19 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “all network-enabled devices associated with the credential of a user are assigned exclusive access to a designated VLAN for a controlled, or temporary, period of time” and “restricting, or limiting, access of a selected VLAN to network-enabled devices associated with a single user, applicant’s claimed method enables all devices associated with a common user to communicate freely and securely with each another within the VLAN”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The examiner notes that applicant’s remarks for newly amended claim limitation “exclusively associating the selected VLAN with the network-enabled device and a credential of a user of the network-enabled device for a restricted period of time refers back to the specification [0002] and [0027]. Based on applicant’s specification, the examiner will treat “exclusively associating” as being able to assign a VLAN to a device or many devices. The examiner finds the support in [0002] and [0027] to disclose network-enabled devices associated with the credential of a user are assigned exclusive access to a designated VLAN for a controlled, or temporary, period of time. However this is not the same as “exclusively associating the selected VLAN with the network-enabled device and a credential of a user of the network-enabled device for a restricted period of time” of applicant’s arguments. The examiner also does not find in the specification “restricting, or limiting, access of a selected VLAN to network-enabled devices associated with a single user.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
According to applicant’s remarks, the claim amendments are supported in [0002] and [0027] of applicant’s specification. The examiner only finds support for “all network-enabled devices associated with the credential of a user are assigned exclusive access to a designated VLAN for a controlled, or temporary, period of time.” The examiner does not find language that support the new limitations “exclusively associating the selected VLAN with the network-enabled device and a credential of a user of the network-enabled device for a restricted period of time”. As stated above, the examiner will treat “exclusively associating” as being able to assign a VLAN to a device or many devices. 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delker (US 8,341,717) and in view of Le Sage (US 2012/0257502) and in view of Kasat (US 10,084,895).
Re Claim 1, Delker discloses whether a network-enabled device is associated with a previously assigned VLAN for a network (col. 2, lines 10-17, assign to a service requester device with the VLAN either previously established for the device classification or dynamically created in response to the request), the network-enabled device having passed authentication, the authentication responsive to a request sent from the network-enabled device to network equipment for access to the network (col. 3, lines 38-45, authentication server verifies and parses device identity certificates furnished by devices to discover device classification to associate devices to VLAN for each class of devices); and
based on a result of the identifying, automatically (i) selecting a VLAN from a pool of dynamically assignable VLANs (col. 4, lines 5-30, classifying the device class to certain VLAN out of the multiple VLAN), (ii) exclusively associating the selected VLAN with the network-enabled device (col. 4, lines 5-30, classifying the device class to certain VLAN) and a credential of a user of the network-enabled device for a restricted period of time (col. 3, lines 27-34, Col. 10, lines 53-62, The digital certificate include trust levels and perform credential checking for the device and its user, and VLAN assignment for the device. After a period of time, the device identity certificate discontinues its associated with the VLAN. Which means that the digital certificate including the user is only valid until the device discontinues the identity certificate after a certain time period), and (iii) instructing the network equipment to assign the network-enabled device to the VLAN selected from the pool (col. 4, lines 5-30, classifying the device class to certain VLAN made for a specific device class).
While Delker discloses if a VLAN was previously established for the device, Delker does not disclose, however Le Sage discloses identifying, automatically, whether a network-enabled device is associated with a previously assigned VLAN for a network ([0015], determine whether the wireless client device has been assigned to a plurality of VLAN within the network by a previous wireless access point).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Delker’s VLAN assignment with Le Sage’s VLAN assignment which includes identifying if the device was previously assigned a VLAN. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to assign the wireless client device to the same VLAN that it was assigned previously.
Delker discloses in col. 6, lines 30-36, the configuration database 120 also comprises the dynamic virtual local area network pool 126 that contains unassigned virtual local area networks that may be dynamically assigned to service requester devices 150, 160 of certain classifications that require assignment to an individual virtual local area network specific to the device for the duration of the session only.
Delker and Le Sage do not explicitly disclose, however Kasat discloses the selected VLAN is associated for a restricted period of time (col. 2, lines 41-54, a subscription for a device to one or more VLAN is maintained until the time expires).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Delker’s VLAN assignment for the duration of the session with Kasat’s maintaining of the VLAN subscription until the timer expires. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to maintain the VLAN assignment until a predetermined period of timer has expired.
Re Claim 2, Delker discloses wherein (i), (ii), and (iii) are performed, automatically, based on the result indicating that there is no previously assigned VLAN associated with the network-enabled device (col. 10, lines 4-30, service requested device of a classification receives a dynamically created VLAN from the network pool) and wherein, in an event the result indicates that the network-enabled device is associated with the previously assigned VLAN, the computer-implemented method further comprises instructing the network equipment to assign the network-enabled device to the previously assigned VLAN (col. 2, lines 10-17, assign to a service requester device with the VLAN either previously established for the device classification or dynamically created in response to the request).
Re Claim 3, Delker discloses wherein (i), (ii), and (iii) are performed, automatically, based on the result indicating that a) there is no previously assigned VLAN associated with the network-enabled device and b) the network-enabled device is not associated with another network-enabled device that has received a respective VLAN assignment (col. 2, lines 10-17, assign to a service requester device with the VLAN either previously established for the device classification or dynamically created in response to the request).
Re Claim 4, Delker discloses wherein, in an event the result indicates that there is no previously assigned VLAN associated with the network-enabled device and that the network-enabled device is associated with a different network-enabled device that is associated with a respective VLAN from the pool, the computer implemented method does not perform (i), (ii), and (iii) and comprises:
associating the network-enabled device with the respective VLAN associated with the different network-enabled device (col. 2, lines 10-17, assign to a service requester device with the VLAN previously established for the device classification); and
instructing the network equipment to assign the network-enabled device to the respective VLAN (col. 2, lines 10-17, assign to a service requester device with the VLAN either previously established for the device classification).
Re Claim 5, Delker discloses wherein the pool of dynamically assignable VLANs is stored in a database and wherein the identifying includes retrieving data from the database and identifying whether the network-enabled device is associated with the previously assigned VLAN based on the data retrieved (col. 1, line 40- col. 2, lines 17, using a certificate to determine the device identity certificate and assign to a service requester device with the VLAN either previously established for the device classification or dynamically created in response to the request).
Re Claim 7, one of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to make the proposed modification to Delker and Le Sage for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, Kasat discloses wherein the selecting includes ensuring that the VLAN selected from the pool of dynamically assignable VLANs is not associated with another network-device that is not associated with the network device and ensuring that the VLAN selected is not in a lockout period (col. 2, line 41 – col. 3, line 21, assigns subscription of the VLAN to a device until the timer expires before releasing the VLAN in order for it to be re-assigned since it is no longer in use by that particular device. Since it determines that there is no other device being used, it determines that the VLAN is not associated with another device. Since it waits for the timer to expire after a predetermined time, it determines that the subscription for that VLAN is no longer in a lockout period).
Re Claim 9, Delker discloses associating the VLAN selected with a media access control (MAC) address of the network-enabled device, embedded identity document (EID) corresponding to an embedded subscriber identity module (eSIM) of the network-enabled device, or other unique identifier of the network-enabled device (col. 3, lines 27-34, The digital certificate include for example an identity of the device manufacturer, the model and serial number, Media Access Control (MAC) address, etc).
With respect to claims 10-15 and 17-19, they are similar to claims 1-7 and 9 and therefore are rejected for the same reasons above.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being Unpatentable over Delker and in view of Le Sage and in view of Kasat and in view of Wilson (US 2002/0009078) and in view of Ryan (US 2009/0059930).
Re Claims 6 and 16, Delker, Le Sage, and Kasat do not disclose, however Wilson discloses maintaining the pool of dynamically assignable VLANs based on at least one timer ([0403], registration device driver to maintain information on client MAX addresses use timing parameter);
refreshing a timer of the at least one timer based on receipt of a refresh signal, the timer associated with the VLAN selected ([0404], ability to extend the expiry time of a particular client);
in response to a timeout of the timer, dissociating the VLAN selected from the network-enabled device and all other network-enabled devices associated with the VLAN selected, the timeout due to lack of receipt of the refresh signal ([0733]-[0741], when the usage period expires, return the VLAN ID back to the pool of VLAN IDs); and
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Delker, Le Sage, and Kasat’s VLAN assignment with Wilson’s VLAN assignment which includes a timing parameter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to create more secure system by having a expiring timed period of VLAN access.
While Wilson discloses returning the VLAN ID back to the pool of VLAND IDs Delker, Le Sage, Kasat and Wilson do not explicitly disclose, however Ryan discloses the dissociating causing the VLAN selected to be returned to the pool as an unused VLAN ([0003], [0030], determine that the VLAN that were previously defined are no longer being used and reassigning the unused VLAN by unassigning the previously reserved VLAN from an entity previously assigned to the VLAN);
in response to the dissociating, instructing the network equipment to de-assign the network-enabled device from the VLAN selected ([0733]-[0741], removes the user port from the VLAN) ([0003], [0030], determine that the VLAN that were previously defined are no longer being used and reassigning the unused VLAN by unassigning the previously reserved VLAN from an entity previously assigned to the VLAN).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Delker, Le Sage, Kasat and WIlson’s VLAN assignment with Ryan’s VLAN re-assignment which includes releasing a VLAN that was previously reserved. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to create more efficient system by being able to release the VLAN that was previously reserved back to being an unused VLAN.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HO T SHIU whose telephone number is (571)270-3810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (9:00am - 5:00pm).
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571-272-3089. 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.
/HO T SHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2443
HO T. SHIU
Examiner
Art Unit 2443
/NICHOLAS R TAYLOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2443