DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per remarks, Applicants argued that (1) Feyzibehnagh is silent as to any disclosure or suggestion about an oblivious server generating a subscriber content filtering policy configuration, the generating of filtered contents is not synonymous to the generation of a subscriber content filtering policy configuration.
As to point (1), Examiner respectfully disagrees because Feyzibehnagh discloses the relay server may simply edit the HTML to remove references to blocked content, the relay server may determine that the HTML references blocked content by examining URLs included in the web page, and determining whether the domains referenced in the URLs related to known sources of blocked content, such as known servers that distribute advertisement, known servers that distribute adult content, etc. [ Figure 14; and paragraph 0146], the determine may be made using a technique that is similar to that described in connection with Figure 13, which is the process allows the security device to provide parental blocking, the security device and one or more naming server may allow a parent or administrative user to mark certain domains as being blocked, the naming server may determine the DNS request corresponds to a blocked domain, the name server may enforce parental blocking by not transmitting numeric network identifiers for domains that are blocked by parental filtering [ i.e. broadly interpreted as generating of a subscriber content filtering policy configuration as claimed ] [ Figure 13; and paragraph 0145 ].
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, 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Els [ US Patent Application No 2018/0302375 ], in view of Feyzibehnagh et al. [ US Patent application No 2019/0215308 ].
As per claim 1, Els discloses the invention as claimed including a method for filtering content [ i.e. device specific website filtering using bifurcated DNS ] [ Abstract ], the method implemented by one or more network traffic management apparatuses, server devices, or client devices, the method comprising:
receiving a domain name system request from a client [ i.e. service gateway receives DNS request from client device ] [ 310, Figure 3; and paragraphs 0007, and 0081 ];
sending an address from the domain name system request to a policy server [ i.e. forward DNS request to the external DNS server ] [ 315, Figure 3; and paragraphs 0031, and 0082 ], wherein the policy server retrieves a filter id associated with the client [ i.e. the external DNS service provider may maintain a filter list, and locate filtering policy ] [ 325, Figure 3; paragraphs 0026, 0036 and 0086 ], wherein the domain name system request with the filter id is received from the policy server [ i.e. external DNS server may then transmit the composed response to the service gateway ] [ 350, Figure 3; and paragraph 0089 ].
Els does not specifically disclose
sending the domain name system request with the filter id to an oblivious server;
receiving a response with filtered content based on the domain name system request with the filter id from the oblivious server, wherein the oblivious server generates a subscriber content filtering policy configuration based on the filter id and generates the response with the filtered content based on the subscriber content filtering policy configuration; and
sending the response to the domain name system request with filtered content to the client.
Feyzibehnagh discloses
sending the domain name system request with the filter id to an oblivious server [ i.e. the security device routes traffic to a relay server ] [ 605, Figure 6; and paragraphs 0114, and 0116 ];
receiving a response with filtered content based on the domain name system request with the filter id from the oblivious server, wherein the oblivious server generates a subscriber content filtering policy configuration based on the filter id and generates the response with the filtered content based on the subscriber content filtering policy configuration [ i.e. the relay server may filter the contents of the reply ] [ 1407, Figure 14; and paragraphs 0072, 0073, and 0146 ]; and
sending the response to the domain name system request with filtered content to the client [ i.e. forward the reply to the user device ] [ paragraphs 0104, and 0145 ].
It would have been to a person skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Els and Feyzibebnagh because the teaching of Feyibabnagh would enable to selectively secure traffic flows based on characteristics of those traffic flows, by selecting one or more security parameters for each traffic flow based on the characteristics of the traffic flow [ Feyzibabnagh, paragraph 0005 ].
6. As per claim 4, Feyzibebnagh discloses wherein sending the domain name system request with the filter id to the oblivious server further comprises: sending a generated unique client header comprising the filter id when the domain name system request is sent using hypertext transfer protocol secure to the oblivious server; or sending the domain name system request with a query name comprising the filter id when the domain name system request is sent with transport layer security to the oblivious server [ i.e. HTTP ] [ paragraphs 0039, 0050, and 0125 ].
7. As per claims 6, and 9, they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 1, and 4.
8. As per claims 11, and 14 they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 1, and 4.
9. As per claims 16, and 19, they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 1, and 4.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Els [ US Patent Application No 2018/0302375 ], in view of Feyzibehnagh et al. [ US Patent application No 2019/0215308 ], and further in view of Ahn et al. [ US Patent Application No 2024/0106861 ].
As per claim 2, Els in view of Feyzilehnah does not specifically disclose wherein the oblivious server: generates and caches a key id, wherein the oblivious server associates the key id with the subscriber content filtering policy in memory; and caches a mapping between the subscriber content filtering policy configuration and the filter id in memory. Ahn discloses wherein the oblivious server: generates and caches a key id, wherein the oblivious server associates the key id with the subscriber content filtering policy in memory; and caches a mapping between the subscriber content filtering policy configuration and the filter id in memory [ i.e. obtain identity/policy pair, and cache this information in the policy index for future use ] [ paragraphs 0083, 0086, and 0111 ]. It would have been to a person skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Els, Feyzibebnagh, and Ahn because the teaching of Ahn would enable to provide system and method to address privacy and regulatory concerns [ Ahn, paragraph 0063 ].
As per claim 3, Ahn discloses wherein the oblivious server: receives a subsequent oblivious domain name system request from a proxy [ i.e. subsequent DNS query request ] [ paragraph 0077 ], wherein the subsequent oblivious domain name system request is encrypted with the key id and comprises a changed address, and wherein the subsequent oblivious domain name system request is sent to the proxy from the client prior to receiving the subsequent oblivious domain name system request from the proxy, retrieves the subscriber content filtering policy configuration from memory based on the key id; decrypts the subsequent oblivious domain name system request using the key id; generates a subsequent oblivious response with filtered content, wherein the subsequent oblivious response is filtered using the filter id and filtering rules from the subscriber content filtering policy configuration; and sends the proxy the subsequent oblivious response, wherein the proxy sends the subsequent oblivious response to the client after receiving the subsequent oblivious response from the oblivious server [ i.e. strip or remove identity information prior to forwarding DNS request to protect identify information and/or privacy information ] [ paragraphs 0075-0077, and 0244 ].
As per claim 5, Ahn discloses caching the response with filtered content and a mapping between the filter id and the subscriber content filtering policy configuration; receiving a subsequent request with the filter id from the client; and sending the response with filtered content to the client, wherein the response is retrieved from memory based on the filter id [ i.e. DNS caching ] [ paragraphs 0111, 0114, and 0118 ].
14. As per claims 7, 8 and 10, they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 2, 3, and 5.
As per claims 12, 13, and 15, they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 2, 3, and 5.
16. As per claims 17, 18, and 20, they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 2, 3, and 5.
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 DUSTIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6 PST.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 571-2727952. 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.
/DUSTIN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446