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
Currently pending claims are 1 – 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to instant claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by Applicant's amendment – please see the following section for the detail of rationale to make the corresponding prior-art(s).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory (or provisional) double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 – 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,985,109. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other – accordingly, because the listed claims of U.S. Patent virtually contain(s) every element of the listed claims of the instant application and thus anticipate the claim(s) of the instant application. Claim(s) of the instant application therefore is/are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim(s) and as such is/are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001)”.
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.
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.
Claims 1 – 4, 9 – 13 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. (U.S. Patent 2008/0005285), in view of Lynch et al. (U.S. Patent 9,980,213).
As per claim 1, Robinson teaches a system for isolation of a LAN comprising:
a. a local area network comprising:
i. at least one default gateway (Robinson: FIG. 1 & FIG. 7 / E-524 and Para [0060] Line 12 – 15);
ii. a first host (Robinson: FIG. 1 / E-132);
iii. a second host (Robinson: FIG. 1 / E-132),
iv. a whitelist device (see below);
v. one or more additional devices (Robinson: Figure 1), wherein at least the first host and second host are connected to the internet via the default gateway (Robinson: Figure 1, Para [0032] and Para [0060] Line 12 – 15).
However, Robinson does not disclose expressly a local area network comprising a whitelist device.
Lynch (& Robinson) teaches a local area network comprising a whitelist device (Lynch: FIG. 1, FIG. 4, FIG. 10A/B & Col. 4 Line 66 – Col. 7 Line 1, Col. 3 Line 50 – 67, and Col. 37 Line 50 – 51: (a) providing a wireless local area network (WLAN) that comprises a plurality of WTRU (Wireless T/R Unit) such as host devices (e.g. mobile phones FIG. 1 / 4: 102(a) – 102(d)), and including (b) a whitelisted MAC/IP address device – i.e. a whitelisted device of the WLAN).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaching of Lynch within the system of Robinson because (a) Robinson teaches preventing malicious communications between hosts (clients) or peer-to-peer communications according to the requirements of network compliance policies (see above), and (b) Lynch teaches providing an effective protecting mechanism against network threats by filtering malicious network data traffic from various network devices on a wireless local area network (WLAN) that comprises a plurality of WTRU (Wireless T/R Unit) such as host devices (e.g. mobile phones FIG. 1 / 4: 102(a) – 102(d)) including whitelisted MAC/IP addresses devices – i.e. whitelisted devices of the WLAN).
b. a device comprising a hardware processor configured to execute a series of executable steps on the first host to allow communications with the whitelist device and prevent communications with the second host via one or more rules applied to at least one of a data link layer or a network layer
(a) (Lynch: see above, FIG. 4A & Col. 37 Line 3 – 12 / Line 42 – 51 and Col. 3 Line 53 – 56 / Line 62 – 67: a host WTRU (e.g. a mobile phone) on the WLAN can be configured through a configuration file to enforce (execute) the policy rules such as communicating (e.g. allowing / passing) some or all traffic from whitelisted MAC / IP address devices on the WLAN);
(b) (Robinson: Para [0059], Para [0058], Para [0038]: an executable processing entity such as a policy key (entity) included at a host device (e.g. a client device) that can perform a layer 2 (followed by a layer 3) block by poisoning an access (routing) table (i.e. a poisoning routing) to prevent communications with other clients (i.e. including the second host or peer-to-peer communications), wherein the poisoned access (routing) table can be an ARP table (Address Resolution Protocol) according to the requirements of network compliance policies – e.g. a ARP poisoning); and
wherein the series of executable steps comprises the establishment and enforcement of at least one endpoint rule selected from the group consisting of: ARP poisoning, route poisoning, null routing, and blackhole routing (see above).
As per claim 11, the claim limitations are met as the same reasons as that set forth in the paragraph above regarding to claim 1 with the exception of the feature(s) of:
to prevent peer-to-peer communications within the local area network by implementing ARP poisoning (Robinson: see above & Para [0059], Para [0058], Para [0038]: an executable processing entity such as a policy key (entity) included at a host device (e.g. a client device) that can perform a layer 2 (followed by a layer 3) block by poisoning an access (routing) table (i.e. a poisoning routing) to prevent communications with other clients (i.e. including the second host or peer-to-peer communications), wherein the poisoned access (routing) table can be an ARP table (Address Resolution Protocol) based on the requirements of network compliance policies – e.g. a ARP poisoning), and
route poisoning on the first or second host (Robinson: see above & Para [0059] Line 7 – 8: to loop (route) back all communication attempts to the client and such a route re-direction by using a MAC address of a target client device along with a static type IP address (Note: the purpose of a ARP table is to map a MAC address into a (L3) IP address) constitutes as one type of route poisoning – this is also consistent with the disclosure of the instant specification (SPEC: Para [0100] Line 1 – 5: intentionally disrupting layer-2 and/or layer-3 communications via route re-direction is referred to as route poisoning).
As per claim(s) 2, 9, 13 and 16, the claims contain(s) similar limitations to claim(s) 1 and thus is/are rejected with the same rationale.
As per claim 3, Robinson teaches the first host (Robinson: Para [0058] and Para [0038]: an executable processing entity such as a policy key included at a host device (e.g. a client device) can perform a layer 2 (followed by a layer 3)).
As per claim 4, Robinson teaches the first host is a virtualized server (Robinson: see above & Para [0044] / [0023]).
As per claim 10 and 13, Robinson teaches to enforce firewall rules on the second host (Robinson: see above & Para [0032]).
As per claim 12, Robinson teaches the first host and second host are connected to the internet via a default gateway (Robinson: Figure 1 & Para [0032] and Para [0060] Line 12 – 15).
Claims 5 – 8 & 14 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. (U.S. Patent 2008/0005285), in view of Lynch et al. (U.S. Patent 9,980,213), and in view of Pahl et al. (U.S. Patent 8,996,873).
As per claim 5 – 6 and 14 – 15, Pahl (& Robinson as modified) teaches wherein the platform is constructed and arranged to whitelist and blacklist network devices (Pahl: Col. 75 Line 26 – 31 and Col. 9 Line 39 – 45: providing an effective protecting mechanism against network threats from malicious clients (customers) acting as a node in a content delivery network by using a whitelist or a blacklist IP address(es) of network devices) || (Lynch: see above).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaching of Pahl within the system of Robinson because (a) Robinson teaches preventing malicious communications between hosts (clients) or peer-to-peer communications according to the requirements of network compliance policies (see above), and (b) Pahl teaches providing an effective protecting mechanism against network threats from malicious clients (customers) acting as a node in a content delivery network by using a whitelist or a blacklist IP address(es) of network devices (see above).
As per claim 7, Pahl (& Robinson as modified) teaches the platform is configured to whitelist a default gateway (Pahl: Col. 75 Line 26 – 31 and Col. 9 Line 39 – 45: protecting against network threats from malicious network device by using a whitelist or a blacklist IP address(es) of network devices) || (Robinson: Figure 1 & Para [0032] and Para [0060] Line 12 – 15: the platform includes a default gateway which is also qualified as one type of network devices) || (Lynch: see above).
As per claim 8, Pahl (& Robinson as modified) teaches the platform is configured to whitelist a subset of necessary local area devices (Robinson: Figure 1 & Para [0032] Line 14 – 22: e.g. protecting devices located at a local area network (LAN)) || (Pahl: Col. 75 Line 26 – 31 and Col. 9 Line 39 – 45: protecting against network threats from malicious network device by using a whitelist or a blacklist IP address ranges of network devices – i.e. a subset of network devices) || (Lynch: see above).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. (U.S. Patent 2008/0005285), in view of Lynch et al. (U.S. Patent 9,980,213), and in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent 7,640,585).
As per claim 17, the claim limitations are met as the same reasons as that set forth in the paragraph above regarding to claim 1 & 11 with the exception of the feature(s) of:
Lee (& Robison as modified) teaches null routing rules on a data link layer or network layer of the hosts (Lee: Col. 8 Line 35 – 40, Col. 4 Line 53 – 55 and Col. 3 Line 1 – 3 / Line 34 – 38: implementing ARP poisoning by inserting a nonexistent (null) ARP address (Note: the purpose of a ARP table is to map a MAC address into a (L3) IP address), which constitutes as one type of null routing, so as to effectively and systematically controlled a variety of LAN attacks to enable the monitoring and managing (& modifying) from a middle (3rd-party) entity instead of looping back to the source client device for preventing the threatening to an entire network).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to propose the modification of implementing an ARP poisoning such that the false entry is a MAC address not in use within the local area network because Lee’s teaching implements an ARP poisoning by inserting a nonexistent ARP address so as to effectively and systematically controlled a variety of LAN attacks to enable the monitoring and managing (& modifying) from a middle (3rd-party) entity in addition to Robison’s looping back to the source client device for preventing the threatening to an entire network (see above) within the Robison’s system of inserting a false entry in the ARP table with a MAC address of the client along with a static type IP address for looping back to the source client device to prevent the threatening to an entire network (see above).
a set of firewall rules applied to a transport layer, a session layer, a presentation layer, or an application layer of the host (Robinson: see above & Para [0032] Line 14 – 22: the router and the LAN also include a set of firewall rules) || (Lee: see above & Col. 2 Line 64 – 67).
As per claim 18 – 19, Robinson as modified teaches an ARP based intrusion detection system (Robinson: see above & Para [0059] / [0058]).
As per claim 20, Robinson as modified teaches comprising a network sensor (Robinson: see above, FIG. 3 & Para [0009] Line 4 – 9: (e.g.) an executable processing entity such as a policy key included at a host device (e.g. a client device) can contribute information such as providing policy state to the policy server, receiving commands, updating, directives from the policy server to perform certain actions for security protections (e.g. w.r.t. an incompliance of network policy directed to a potential risk of under attack from a specific host) – this is consistent with the disclosure of the instant specification (SPEC: Para [0057] Line 1 – 4).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LONGBIT CHAI whose telephone number is (571)272-3788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, Lynn D. Feild can be reached at 571-272-2092. 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.
---------------------------------------------------
/Longbit Chai/
Longbit Chai E.E. Ph.D.
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
No. #2503 – 2025
---------------------------------------------------