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
This is a reply to the application filed on 02/06/2024, in which, claim(s) 1-20 are pending. Claim(s) 1, 11 and 20 are independent.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/06/2024, has been reviewed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner is considering the information disclosure statement.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 02/06/2024 are accepted by The Examiner.
Examiner’s Note
Claim 11 recites “An electronic device, comprising: … wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to perform actions” and has been analyzed for 35 U.S.C. 101. No 35 U.S.C. 101 deemed necessary since the processor is interpreted as hardware processor in order to “execute” instructions. Therefore, the examiner has viewed the electronic device as meeting 35 U.S.C. 101 eligibility requirements.
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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zacks et al. (US 2022/0321483 A1) in view of Perez Martinez et al. (US 2023/0422030 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 20, Zacks discloses
receiving a data packet associated with the internet-of-things device ([0032], “The operations can include intercepting a first (data) packet be transmitted in a network”, [0168], “Resource 970 can be any service, resource, device, or entity which requires authentication of user 910. For example, resource 970 can be…Internet of Things (IOT) device”);
determining whether the data packet is for a to-be-protected target internet-of-things device based on a service identification in the data packet ([0169], “Resource 970 can authenticate the identity of user 910 through trusted authentication provider 960, which can be in communication with CMFA device 920… Trusted authentication provider 960 can receive an (service) identification credential, such as an IDActivKey, from CMFA device 920 via CMFA application 950 that is unique to resource 970 for user 910”);
Zacks does not explicitly teach but Perez Martinez teaches
filtering, in response to the data packet being for the to-be-protected target internet-of-things device, the data packet based on service forwarding information related to a service of the target internet-of-things device to protect the target internet-of-things device ([0083-0086], “using the Packet Forwarding Control Protocol (PFCP) as follows:”, “SMF 130 controls service traffic (i.e., packet) processing in the UPF 105 by establishing, modifying or deleting PFCP sessions and by provisioning (i.e., adding, modifying or deleting) Packet Detection Rules (PDRs) and associated traffic handling information such as Forwarding Action Rules”, “Each PDR contains Packet Detection Information (PDI) for service traffic detection, specifying the traffic filters”, [0096], “the service traffic subject to a certain QoS and/or charging handling is detected by traffic detection information composed of packet filters such as N-tuples. For example, a 5-tuple of a particular service traffic flow (i.e., of the data packets constituting same) contains its source Internet Protocol (IP) address, its source port, its destination IP address, its destination port, and an identifier”).
Zacks and Perez Martinez are analogous art as they are in the same field of endeavor of information security. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Perez Martinez with the disclosure of Zacks. The motivation/suggestion would have been to trustfully handling service traffic (Perez Martinez, [0001]).
Regarding Claims 2, and 12, the combined teaching of Zacks and Perez Martinez teaches
determining whether the service identification corresponding to the target internet-of-things device exists in the data packet (Zacks, [0026], “analyzing packets associated with the transaction based on a service”, [0169], “Trusted authentication provider 960 can receive an (service) identification credential”); and
determining that the data packet is for the to-be-protected target internet-of-things device in response to the service identification corresponding to the target internet-of-things device existing in the data packet (Zacks, [0044], “he APM can detect a supplemental authentication request or identify a specific endpoint”, [0169], “Trusted authentication provider 960 can receive an (service) identification credential”).
Regarding Claims 3, and 13, the combined teaching of Zacks and Perez Martinez teaches
forwarding the data packet in response to the service identification corresponding to the target internet-of-things device not existing in the data packet (Perez Martinez, [0013], “The method may further comprise forwarding the service-related request…As an example, the service-related request, or information contained therein, may be forwarded to a network node”).
Regarding Claims 4, and 14, the combined teaching of Zacks and Perez Martinez teaches
determining a header of the data packet, the header comprising the service identification and a destination to which the data packet is to be sent (Perez Martinez, [0096-0098], “the service traffic subject to a certain QoS and/or charging handling is detected by traffic detection information composed of packet filters such as N-tuples. For example, a 5-tuple of a particular service traffic flow…contains its source Internet Protocol (IP) address, its source port, its destination IP address”, “protocol ID of the protocol above IP/Next header type, Type of Service”);
determining whether a forwarding information item corresponding to the header exists in the service forwarding information based on the service identification and the destination (Perez Martinez, [0096-0098], “the service traffic subject to a certain QoS and/or charging handling is detected by traffic detection information composed of packet filters such as N-tuples. For example, a 5-tuple of a particular service traffic flow…contains its source Internet Protocol (IP) address, its source port, its destination IP address”, “protocol ID of the protocol above IP/Next header type, Type of Service”); and
sending the data packet to the destination in response to the forwarding information item corresponding to the header existing in the service forwarding information (Perez Martinez, [0103], “The PCF 106 will forward the corresponding PDRs”).
Regarding Claims 5, and 15, the combined teaching of Zacks and Perez Martinez teaches
abandoning the data packet in response to the forwarding information item corresponding to the header not existing in the service forwarding information (Perez Martinez, [0086], “the processing of the packets included the service traffic, specifically forward, duplicate, drop or buffer the packet”).
Regarding Claims 6, and 16, the combined teaching of Zacks and Perez Martinez teaches
ahead service forwarding information and/or back service forwarding information (Perez Martinez, [0086], “the processing of the packets included the service traffic, specifically forward, duplicate, drop or buffer the packet”).
Regarding Claims 7, and 17, the combined teaching of Zacks and Perez Martinez teaches
determining whether the forwarding information item corresponding to the header exists in the ahead service forwarding information in response to the destination being an external server (Perez Martinez, [0058], “to trustfully enforce a traffic handling action in regard to the service traffic…external entity operating a server”); and
determining whether the forwarding information item corresponding to the header exists in the back service forwarding information in response to the destination being a local network device (Perez Martinez, [0086], “The AF 102 also verifies the new event and subscriber and/or UE identifier as received from the network node 108 (see also steps 1102 and 1104 of the flow diagrams 1100 of FIG. 11), and if the selective endorsement is locally”).
Regarding Claims 8, and 18, the combined teaching of Zacks and Perez Martinez teaches
receiving network information related to the internet-of-things device, the network information comprising at least one of the following: differentiated services code point information and access control information associated with the internet-of-things device (Zacks, [0037], “the TOS field can be temporarily extended to encode formation to signal to network devices that the various transactions should be prioritized or that it is sensitive. A type of service (TOS) field is a fixed length of 1 byte and includes a differentiated services code point (DSCP) field to prioritize network traffic”, [0168], “resource 970 can be a social media service, bank, hospital, motor vehicle department, bar, voting system, Internet of Things (IOT) device, or access device. In some embodiments, resource 970 can be accessed by user 910 through an access device”); and
generating the service forwarding information based on the network information (Zacks, [0169], “use this information in tandem with access requirements received from resource 970”).
Regarding Claim 9, the combined teaching of Zacks and Perez Martinez teaches
wherein the differentiated services code point information and the access control information are generated based on a usage description of the internet-of-things device (Zacks, [0037], “the TOS field can be temporarily extended to encode formation to signal to network devices that the various transactions should be prioritized or that it is sensitive. A type of service (TOS) field is a fixed length of 1 byte and includes a differentiated services code point (DSCP) field to prioritize network traffic (as access control information)”, [0168], “resource 970 can be a social media service, bank, hospital, motor vehicle department, bar, voting system, Internet of Things (IOT) device, or access device. In some embodiments, resource 970 can be accessed by user 910 through an access device”).
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zacks et al. (US 2022/0321483 A1) in view of Perez Martinez et al. (US 2023/0422030 A1) further in view of Wohlert et al. (US 2011/0249658 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, the combined teaching of Zacks and Perez Martinez does not explicitly teach but Wohlert teaches
updating the service forwarding information in response to the access control information being updated ([0096], “provision and activate (i.e. update) extrinsic forwarding service for a mobile device. The one or more events can include, for example, update of an access control list”).
Zacks, Perez Martinez and Wohlert are analogous art as they are in the same field of endeavor of information security. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wohlert with the combined teaching of Zacks and Perez Martinez. The motivation/suggestion would have been to enable presence-based customized routing of an incoming communication (Wohlert, [0006]).
Regarding Claim 19, the combined teaching of Zacks and Perez Martinez teaches
wherein the differentiated services code point information and the access control information are generated based on a usage description of the internet-of-things device (Zacks, [0037], “the TOS field can be temporarily extended to encode formation to signal to network devices that the various transactions should be prioritized or that it is sensitive. A type of service (TOS) field is a fixed length of 1 byte and includes a differentiated services code point (DSCP) field to prioritize network traffic (as access control information)”, [0168], “resource 970 can be a social media service, bank, hospital, motor vehicle department, bar, voting system, Internet of Things (IOT) device, or access device. In some embodiments, resource 970 can be accessed by user 910 through an access device”).
The combined teaching of Zacks and Perez Martinez does not explicitly teach but Wohlert teaches
updating the service forwarding information in response to the access control information being updated ([0096], “provision and activate (i.e. update) extrinsic forwarding service for a mobile device. The one or more events can include, for example, update of an access control list”).
Zacks, Perez Martinez and Wohlert are analogous art as they are in the same field of endeavor of information security. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wohlert with the combined teaching of Zacks and Perez Martinez. The motivation/suggestion would have been to enable presence-based customized routing of an incoming communication (Wohlert, [0006]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG-FENG HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Eleni A Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-3867. 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.
/CHENG-FENG HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497