DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This Office Action responds to the amendment and argument filed on June 02, 2026, in response to the Office Action mailed on December 03, 2025.
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 39-45, 47-55 and 57-58 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] and also [0079] and [0209]);
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, by the authenticating DNS server, a status of whether the authentication information is valid based on a trust status of the trust authority or a validation process of the authentication information; 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]);
determining, by the authenticating DNS server, a status of whether the authentication information is valid based on a trust status of the trust authority or a validation process of the authentication information (abstract and paragraphs [0035] – [0040] that states, “ the DNS server may contain a database and software that allows the DNS server to identify the type of source data processing system or the identity of the source data processing system and prioritize the request accordingly” and also states, “ if a client data processing system needs an immediate domain name translation to process a business transaction, the client data processing system includes data in the tag to indicate that the process has a high priority. On the other hand, if the client data processing system is processing a command to gather a vast number of IP address, and time to complete the command is less of a problem, then each request for translation”).
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 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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 02, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s argument regarding the amendment of the independent claims examiner notes that, applicant’s specification paragraph [0062] discloses the feature stating, “In step 830, a DNS request is sent by the user's computer to an authenticating DNS server (730) using the issued authentication certificate. In step 840, the authenticating DNS server may seek to validate the authentication certificate. Generally, either the authenticating DNS server will either recognize and trust the certificate issuer or will not trust the certificate issuer. In step 850, the authenticating DNS server (730) may determine whether the authentication information is valid based on the trust status of the certificate issuer and further based on a validation process of the certificate. If valid (and trusted), the authentication certificate may be used to deliver a user specific/class specific DNS response.”.
Examiner also notes that, abstract and paragraphs [0035] – [0040] discloses this feature stating, “ the DNS server may contain a database and software that allows the DNS server to identify the type of source data processing system or the identity of the source data processing system and prioritize the request accordingly” and also states, “ if a client data processing system needs an immediate domain name translation to process a business transaction, the client data processing system includes data in the tag to indicate that the process has a high priority. On the other hand, if the client data processing system is processing a command to gather a vast number of IP address, and time to complete the command is less of a problem, then each request for translation”.
Examiner also notes that, 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).
Examiner notes no other remarks or argument. Accordingly the rejection remains as is.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights