DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 05, 2025 has been entered.
Hence, this Office Action responds to the amendment and argument filed on November 05, 2025, in response to the Office Action mailed on
Priority
This application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/062,147, filed on October 2, 2020, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/354,043, filed on March 14, 2019, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/251,607, filed on October 3, 2011.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 39-49 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hotz et al. (US 2004/0039798, hereinafter Hotz), in view of Hegde et al. (US 2006/0242321, hereinafter Hegde).
With respect to claims 39 and 49, Hotz disclose a method, system of authenticated Domain Name System (DNS) name resolution, the method comprising:
receiving, by an authenticating DNS server, a DNS request from a user, wherein the DNS request comprises an authentication information issued by a trust authority (figure 1 shows receiving at a DNS server 100 query as it is described in abstract stating “The user request may be a domain name resolution request and the query mechanism provides an Internet Protocol (IP) address corresponding to the domain name”);
determining whether the authentication information is valid (abstract and paragraph [0036]);
returning a first DNS response based on the classification for the user (abstract and paragraph [0036] and claim 1).
Hotz does not explicitly disclose the feature of determining a classification for the user based on the authentication information and determining a second DNS response.
Hegde teaches the feature of determining a classification for the user based on the authentication information and determining a second DNS response (abstract and paragraphs [0035] – [0040]).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Hotz to determine a classification for the user based on the authentication information and determining a second DNS response, as taught by Hegde in order to facilitate a DNS resolution request. Incorporating such feature would enhance the resolution in the same manner.
With respect to claims 40 and 50 Hegde further teaches the feature, wherein the authentication information is issued based on identification information provided by the user (abstract and paragraphs [0035] – [0040]).
With respect to claims 41 and 51 Hegde further teaches the feature, wherein the authentication information comprises information associated with the classification for the user (abstract and paragraphs [0035] – [0040]).
With respect to claims 42 and 52 Hegde further teaches the feature, wherein the DNS request comprises a request for information regarding at least one resource determined by the classification for the user based on the authentication information (abstract and paragraphs [0035] – [0040]).
With respect to claims 43 and 53 Hegde further teaches the feature, wherein the authentication information is an authentication certificate (abstract and paragraphs [0035] – [0040]).
With respect to claims 44 and 54 Hegde further teaches the feature, wherein determining the classification for the user comprises: determining one or more available classifications for the user; determining the classification for the user, wherein the determined classification is at least one of the one or more available classifications; and tracking the determined classification for the user (abstract and paragraphs [0035] – [0040]).
With respect to claims 45 and 55 Hegde further teaches the feature, wherein the one or more available classifications comprises at least one of a high priority user, a middle priority user, a low priority user, a governmental user, an emergency professional user, a high-traffic user, a free user, a paid user, a premium user, or a guest user (abstract and paragraphs [0035] – [0040]).
With respect to claims 46 and 56 Hegde further teaches the feature, wherein determining whether the authentication information is valid is based on at least one of a trust status of the trust authority or a validation process of the authentication information (abstract and paragraphs [0035] – [0040]).
With respect to claims 47 and 57 Hegde further teaches the feature, wherein determining whether the authentication information is valid comprises: examining the authentication information; determining whether the user is authenticated in accordance with implemented caching guidelines upon examining an authentication cache; upon determining that the user is authenticated, validating the user as authenticated; and upon determining that the user is not authenticated, executing a query to a resource authentication interface (abstract and paragraphs [0035] – [0040]).
With respect to claims 48 and 58 Hegde further teaches the feature, wherein determining whether the authentication information is valid further comprises: upon executing the query to the resource authentication interface, determining whether the resource authentication interface returns a valid response, upon determining that the resource authentication interface returns the valid response, validating the user as authenticated; and upon determining that the resource authentication interface does not return the valid response, further determining that the user is not authenticated (abstract and paragraphs [0035] – [0040]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROKIB MASUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5390. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/ROKIB MASUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627